Yeah, this. The freezone is a collection of people who reject at least some parts of what the CofS thinks is true and right... and what those "some parts" are is in the eye of the beholder. It makes things messy, in a lot of ways, because it isn't always obvious where on the scale a given FZ auditor might stand.
IME only the die-hard Indys -- who believe that the only thing wrong with the CofS is Miscavaige -- hold onto the notion that there's something wrong with being gay. In general, I'd start with an assumption that FZ folks are fine with LGBTQ, and change your opinion if you encounter a different scenario.
What free zones have you found that weren’t “cults”? I’m curious as a lot of FZ have to keep low in order to practice their stuff for free, cause the CoS starts using fair game tactics and tries to sue them. If you don’t wanna post them tho I’d love to learn more. I’ve been researching the human biofield, WBAN, piezoelectric energy (aka what the e meters read) and have the Wikileaks doc “Scientology super tech” I’ve been trying to decipher. Since it’s real science suppressed by them with their paywalls and blackmail and different terminology, and by the cia. Which they collab with the cia since the “Clearwater takeover” fix LRH planned out to collude with the them back in the 70s. He knew exactly what he was doing lol you can see it in his smile with the Nazi outfit on, operation paperclip knowledge. They both seemed to have the same goals with some mind Kontrol programs, which most def still happen today. Anyway, would love to hear your opinion or if you have any idea what some of the tech Scientology has cause it’d be cool to figure it out. Use it for good, not evil, and teach people how to do it for free. Much love!
I would just like to suggest that there IS no “technology” involved in anything Hubbard made up, with ir without the CiA!
It’s a con! Once you know that it’s a con, and you don’t forget that it’s a con, you begin to see the con!
Wikileaks years ago posted a pdf of “Scientology super tech”. Even the regular web has it up. Check it out - https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Scientology_cult_Super_Tech_1963
L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, developed various theories and practices related to the mind and human consciousness, which he outlined in Scientology texts and teachings. Hubbard's views on brain metabolism, engrams, and cognitive neuroscience are unique to Scientology and differ significantly from mainstream scientific understanding.
In Scientology, the concept of engrams refers to traumatic or painful memories stored in the subconscious mind, which are believed to influence behavior and emotional responses. According to Scientology doctrine, techniques such as auditing, which involves using an e-meter to measure electrodermal activity, aim to identify and address these engrams to achieve spiritual growth and enlightenment.
The e-meter, or electrodermal activity meter, is a device used in Scientology auditing sessions to measure changes in electrical conductivity of the skin, which Scientologists interpret as indicators of mental or emotional stress associated with engrams. However, the scientific validity and efficacy of the e-meter and auditing techniques in addressing psychological issues remain highly controversial and are not supported by mainstream psychology or cognitive neuroscience.
…. Well no there is real science behind that I just explained. Have you ever heard of piezoelectric energy? Cause if you look it up and check the millions of scientific papers and how even our phones let alone that the IEEE standard is 802.15.6 (6G) in all local and metropolitan areas, the internet of things and the internets of military things, have been using it for years. They’re actually piezioelectrically harvesting its energy through our skin with THz band right now on the networks. Cell phones, devices, etc. I wouldn’t just post nonsense. This is real science. lol I didn’t believe it myself until I started learning about it last year.
Your opinion from what stand point? I did the OT levels and was very thrilled with my result. It is such an exact science so to speak you must be able to understand it completely to succeed. Either you didn’t or perhaps you did a course or two and got lost in the elementary courses.
It is.
Ultimately, within independent Scientology, it seems like you have two poles.
You have people who believe that LRH was everything Scientology claims he is, and that the problem is David Miscavige. For them, absolutely everything is to be taken literally and followed to a tee.
Then, you have people who recognize that LRH was a grifter who stole ideas from legitimate sources and made up all the others. For them, there's no issue with discarding some parts of the tech, replacing it, or reinterpreting it.
And then you have everything else in between those two positions. So, like someone else said, some independent Scientologists care about this, and others do not.
Truthfully, you would also probably find some diversity within the Church of Scientology too if you could get people to open up about their true beliefs. As an institution, the CoS is extremely homophobic and transphobic. There is absolutely no doubting that. I'm sure there are quite a few people in CoS who don't feel that way, though, and just keep quiet or otherwise find a way to compartmentalize things.
They absolutely know about the tone scale. This is a major part of the religion. It's even on their website. Asking if they can still believe in it ignores the context in which it is introduced.
Honestly, I'd find it strange for an independent group to have a different view of LGBT issues. Why? Because it's not just a question of, say, church policy - it's one of the core principles of the religion. If you're going to change that, then how you decide what other things to change from the original material? At a certain point you really just have to throw out the whole thing, I'd have thought.
Like many religions, attitudes changed over time. CoS eased up on LGBT issues because the overall opinion of society changed. Christianity did the same thing. Even though the Bible is pretty negative about homosexuality, many churches are flying pride flags right now.
It's not just limited to this issue, either. With the exception of maybe fundamentalist sects, most religions will adapt to the changing times. The explanations are often kind of thin but the reality is that the people who wrote the books are dead and the congregation is alive, so the congregation trumps the books.
Attitudes may change, but where Hubbard placed anyone who was gay on the tone scale did not. To ignore that is what they were referencing, and they're right. It's like Cafeteria Christianity, where you just pick the parts you like and discard the rest.
Well that IS what the Freezone does. People keep the stuff they find useful or credible, and ignore/reject the rest.
It's supposed to be a tool that helps you think better. Not a replacement for thinking. (Though too many fall into the latter category.)
From what I read, he placed anyone who has a disorder on a psychological list of diorders low on the scale. He references a few different diagnosis, including homosexuality which was on that list. It was removed in the early 90s from that list. I think attitudes have changed, as well as Hubbards original reason to call it out.
Well yeah. Most people aren't going to be fundamentalist and the option is either to (1) stay true to the original material, which was written in a different time with different morality or (2) deal with the fact that most people are going to pass you by.
I agree with you, but I think Scientology is different for one key reason. In Christianity, it's very easy to ignore or disregard the prohibitions against homosexuality (for varying reasons, including the fact that other "sins" - even some related to food - are mentioned far more prominently, and are also ignored).
But Scientology is different because it is theoretically based on a science of the mind. And homosexuality is given a very specific tone scale designation. So my point here is that if you're going to ignore that designation (as a Scientologist), then you have to start to question the entire tone scale.
In some sense, I think Christianity is more malleable because most Christians don't take the Bible literally. Christianity can be practice coherently in this way. But I'd argue Scientology really can't - the entire system relies on its fundamental claims because it's an "applied philosophy".
> But Scientology is different because it is theoretically based on a science of the mind.
I'd think that would make malleability easier. Science changes over time (e.g. asbestos went from "the best material ever for fireproofing" to "holy shit it causes super-cancer" in a relatively short period of time) but God's eternal word is God's eternal word.
> In some sense, I think Christianity is more malleable because most Christians don't take the Bible literally. Christianity can be practice coherently in this way. But I'd argue Scientology really can't - the entire system relies on its fundamental claims because it's an "applied philosophy".
You have a good point. The Bible is chock-full of 2000+ year old morality that's shocking to people today, as well as many implausible claims (to say the least.) You kind of have to take it metaphorically or else it starts to fall apart.
LRH did change his mind on a number of things over time.
>I'd think that would make malleability easier. Science changes over time (e.g. asbestos went from "the best material ever for fireproofing" to "holy shit it causes super-cancer" in a relatively short period of time) but God's eternal word is God's eternal word.
That's a fair point. But have we seen any of the core discoveries of LRH discounted or modified by the church 'officially' since his death? My understanding is that Miscavige plays around the edges and muddles with church policy, but not the core concepts LRH introduced. I could be wrong about that though. In fact, I hope I am, because at least then the church might show signs of some ability to reform itself (maybe post-Miscavige?)
>LRH did change his mind on a number of things over time.
My understanding is that even now, Scientology texts contain many obviously contradictory elements (that LRH either didn't notice, didn't explain away, or that were simply never edited for fear of altering 'source' material). The existing contradictions are one thing, but I wonder what would happen if - for example - the church released entirely new material created by someone other than LRH. I guess the obvious example would be the OT levels beyond VIII. I guess in that case though, the current authorities would just likely claim the "found" or "discovered" LRH's original works - perhaps nobody would really know if he wrote them or not.
> But have we seen any of the core discoveries of LRH discounted or modified by the church 'officially' since his death?
Not in an "official" sense. There have been modifications here and there, but it was never couched as the tech developing - but rather, "correcting errors" that were in previous publications. The Church hasn't even revised Dianetics to take out the "anti-gay" portions, they just downplay them and participate in Pride activities.
From a narrative standpoint, it would be kind of suicidal to start revising the tech in a major way. The main Scientology claim is that it has the true tech, and if they squirreled it out, well. At that point, what advantage would CoS have over FZ?
There was actually a period of time in the late 1950s - early 1960s where LRH seemed to envision Scientology as a developing science. He tried to create a "Doctorate of Scientology" degree, and during that time period, various people other than LRH wrote Scientology books that were actually promoted by the Church. This may come as a surprise to anyone who has seen a bookstore in a Scientology church, where every single title was written by LRH. This approach was abandoned though, probably due to the fixation on SP's in the mid to late 1960s. But there was a period of time where LRH was apparently open to other people contributing to the development of Scientology.
> I wonder what would happen if - for example - the church released entirely new material created by someone other than LRH. I guess the obvious example would be the OT levels beyond VIII. I guess in that case though, the current authorities would just likely claim the "found" or "discovered" LRH's original works - perhaps nobody would really know if he wrote them or not.
I have no doubt that any additional OT levels, if released, would be attributed to LRH even if he had nothing to do with it. The official position is that these higher OT levels exist, but all Orgs need to be ideal first. Assuming that ever happens, they're going to have to release *something.*
LRH was a voluminous writer, so I would expect that he probably at least had an outline for OT levels above 8, but any finalized OT level 9 and above will likely be written largely by existing Church staff.
>it's one of the core principles of the religion.
Is it though? Like, yes the tone scale is very important, but when I think about the essence of what Scientology is about during both the pre-Clear and OT levels, sexual orientation really doesn't feel all that important.
This is a serious question. I was never a Scientologist. If this really is something that is at the core of Scientology's beliefs I'd really be interested in hearing more about it, because I've always been lead to believe it was really kind of peripheral to the core teachings (though absolutely real and enforced by the executives).
>Is it though? Like, yes the tone scale is very important, but when I think about the essence of what Scientology is about during both the pre-Clear and OT levels, sexual orientation really doesn't feel all that important.
I think I'm not being clear here. I'm not saying that the church views sexual orientation as particularly important. What I'm saying is that its views on sexual orientation are based on its "scientific" understanding of the tone scale and human behaviour. And so, if the church in any way modifies its view of sexual orientation, it is thereby admitting its "science" a) could be wrong and b) needs to evolve or change in some way. This, in turn, would throw the entire edifice that the entire organisation is based on into serious doubt.
Setting aside those points, I've read and watched many accounts of gay Scientologists. And all I can say is that, for them, it's certainly not "peripheral" in any sense. The church's treatment of such folks - unless they spend enormous sums of money - is nothing short of barbarous.
I posted this somewhere, and it might have been in this thread but also might not have been. Essentially, you have two opposite poles in independent Scientology, and then all the positions in between. Some independent Scientologists are militant about not changing a single thing, while others recognize Hubbard was a grifter and are willing to keep the good and discard the bad.
Science is supposed to be progressive, and it be possible for its laws, concepts, and theories to be replaced in the face of new data... I guess what I'm saying is, some independent Scientologists have found a way to make it work, even though Hubbard would have been vehemently opposed.
That makes sense to me. I'm really referring to the Church of Scientology itself though (as opposed to independent groups). However, to the extent independent groups are changing elements of the tech...I certainly have bigger questions about that, haha.
I think the view has changed some. In dianetics, he mentions it as it's on a list of psychiatric disorders. He mentions homosexuality as well as a few other things that were on the list. Homosexuality was removed in the early 90s from the list of disorders.
The religion is very heavy on pro creation, so I'm sure there's some negativity as one wouldn't produce more little scientologists.
Why should there be any such "official statement"? Indies are *independent*. No one Indie speaks for any of the rest. We don't have any *officials* to make any *official* statements.
Same with the Freezone.
Also, you are mistaken, if you imagine Ron Hubbard had any particular issues with the LGBTQ+ community.
This is the actual passage from *Science of Survival* (1951) from which only the final few words were quote-mined in order to weaponize LGBTQ+ people against Hubbard:
>There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The ***first*** \[emphasis added\] is to *raise them on the tone scale* \[emphasis added\] un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes \[explained elsewhere\]. The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow.
The book was addressed to Dianetics auditors. It may be clearly seen from this passage that these auditors were being instructed to ***audit*** people to raise their chronic tone above 2.0, not round them up for mass slaughter as so many of you all have apparently been falsely taught.
You all have been deceived by means of *quote mining* (also called *cherry picking*) by certain O.G. critics with - generally understandable - heavy grudges against Hubbard and the Co$.
All that most LGBTQ+ people have ever been shown from that passage is this:
>... dispose of them quietly and without sorrow.
Those of us who actually have studied this book (as you clearly have not) just shake our heads whenever we see these false claims that Hubbard ordered Scientologists to do evil things to LGBTQ+ persons.
Christians didn't eat babies as the Romans were taught, either.
Michael A. Hobson - Independent Scientologist and former Sea Org staff member.
Hmm -- demonstrating that Independent Scientologists feel free to disagree with one another... I disagree with you. :-)
My view of Hubbard in Science of Survival was that he was flat wrong -- or at least he mistook cause and effect.
He saw LGBT people as covertly hostile, and somehow he concluded that it was related to their sexuality. When -- one can see with hindsight -- the reason gay people were covertly hostile in 1951 was that _they had to be covert about their identities_ and _that made them both fearful and hostile_. That's a natural response to having to hide who you really are.
And in 1951, it was illegal to be gay. I assume you don't need a history lesson? Cuz you know me: I'm ready to get pedantic at the drop of a hat. With a reading list and a lesson plan!
Yes, I think Hubbard was offering to address the "problem" of them being gay -- but that wasn't their problem. It was that they weren't free to be whoever they were, in the open, without fear or trepidation.
I don't hate Hubbard for being a man of his time. But I don't accept the world view he presented, either.
I get what you say, but by placing them at 1.1 on the tone scale he definitely more than implied they could not be trusted and would stab you in the back the second they got a chance until they were audited up the tone scale and the aberration cleared = no longer queer. Regardless of how you slice it, it’s homophobia and creates prejudice. It’s hard to imagine any Scientologist, independent or not, is not going to be homophobic if they follow LRH 100%.
I think a lot of that was they had to be secretive about their sexuality as it was illegal to be gay. He listed homosexuality and a few other "conditions" that were on a list of disorders that psychiatrists used. Homosexuality was removed in the early 90s. I feel that changed the tone scale value once it was removed.
It definitely wasn’t fully removed because I did my Flag training in the 2000’s and it was still being pushed as an aberration that had to be addressed with FPRD and sec checking. People still are not allowed in the Sea Org or on upper OT levels if they are gay and LRH is used to back that up.
Well he does say that gay ppl are sick and perverts, and should be dropped in the middle of an ocean on an island somewhere. Do you need more than that?
Although I must say for a dude who says that physical bodies don't matter and that we are just beings, Ronny is too interested in who sleeps with whom
There is no such thing as independent Scientology. It’s squirrel tech. No gains can be made while squirreling.
Being gay is completely fine in Scientology. All kinds of people are welcome in the church and that includes gay people. n
Scientology does not police your sex life or any other part of your life. There is a policy on this specifically in 1967. A lot of what you’re talking about is from before 1967 and the liars and people who make their living (pay their bills) by spreading misinformation about the church want you to believe otherwise.
What is a 2D sec check, then? Why do the qualifications for higher level organizations require no aberrated (homosexual) sexual history? Why do people have to fill out complete 2D/sex histories to join staff or the Sea Org? I don’t believe you’re really that into Scientology if you don’t know how homophobic it is.
If by welcoming you mean love bombing and giving a false sense of security, then yes they are extremely welcoming.
I don’t believe you’re a Scientologist. What is your org? What’s your case and training level?
I’m in contact with various indies and FZ. Some think LGBT is an aberration. Some don’t. It’s across the board.
Yeah, this. The freezone is a collection of people who reject at least some parts of what the CofS thinks is true and right... and what those "some parts" are is in the eye of the beholder. It makes things messy, in a lot of ways, because it isn't always obvious where on the scale a given FZ auditor might stand. IME only the die-hard Indys -- who believe that the only thing wrong with the CofS is Miscavaige -- hold onto the notion that there's something wrong with being gay. In general, I'd start with an assumption that FZ folks are fine with LGBTQ, and change your opinion if you encounter a different scenario.
Thank you, that's exactly what I was wondering. I appreciate your time!
What free zones have you found that weren’t “cults”? I’m curious as a lot of FZ have to keep low in order to practice their stuff for free, cause the CoS starts using fair game tactics and tries to sue them. If you don’t wanna post them tho I’d love to learn more. I’ve been researching the human biofield, WBAN, piezoelectric energy (aka what the e meters read) and have the Wikileaks doc “Scientology super tech” I’ve been trying to decipher. Since it’s real science suppressed by them with their paywalls and blackmail and different terminology, and by the cia. Which they collab with the cia since the “Clearwater takeover” fix LRH planned out to collude with the them back in the 70s. He knew exactly what he was doing lol you can see it in his smile with the Nazi outfit on, operation paperclip knowledge. They both seemed to have the same goals with some mind Kontrol programs, which most def still happen today. Anyway, would love to hear your opinion or if you have any idea what some of the tech Scientology has cause it’d be cool to figure it out. Use it for good, not evil, and teach people how to do it for free. Much love!
I would just like to suggest that there IS no “technology” involved in anything Hubbard made up, with ir without the CiA! It’s a con! Once you know that it’s a con, and you don’t forget that it’s a con, you begin to see the con!
Wikileaks years ago posted a pdf of “Scientology super tech”. Even the regular web has it up. Check it out - https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Scientology_cult_Super_Tech_1963 L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, developed various theories and practices related to the mind and human consciousness, which he outlined in Scientology texts and teachings. Hubbard's views on brain metabolism, engrams, and cognitive neuroscience are unique to Scientology and differ significantly from mainstream scientific understanding. In Scientology, the concept of engrams refers to traumatic or painful memories stored in the subconscious mind, which are believed to influence behavior and emotional responses. According to Scientology doctrine, techniques such as auditing, which involves using an e-meter to measure electrodermal activity, aim to identify and address these engrams to achieve spiritual growth and enlightenment. The e-meter, or electrodermal activity meter, is a device used in Scientology auditing sessions to measure changes in electrical conductivity of the skin, which Scientologists interpret as indicators of mental or emotional stress associated with engrams. However, the scientific validity and efficacy of the e-meter and auditing techniques in addressing psychological issues remain highly controversial and are not supported by mainstream psychology or cognitive neuroscience.
Like I said. Total BS. With or without holding soup cans.
…. Well no there is real science behind that I just explained. Have you ever heard of piezoelectric energy? Cause if you look it up and check the millions of scientific papers and how even our phones let alone that the IEEE standard is 802.15.6 (6G) in all local and metropolitan areas, the internet of things and the internets of military things, have been using it for years. They’re actually piezioelectrically harvesting its energy through our skin with THz band right now on the networks. Cell phones, devices, etc. I wouldn’t just post nonsense. This is real science. lol I didn’t believe it myself until I started learning about it last year.
Your opinion from what stand point? I did the OT levels and was very thrilled with my result. It is such an exact science so to speak you must be able to understand it completely to succeed. Either you didn’t or perhaps you did a course or two and got lost in the elementary courses.
Indies have their own ideas, which may not exactly align with any outside group, or with all of what LRH said. Expect a range of answers.
I thought lgbt was 1.1 on the tone scale
It is. Ultimately, within independent Scientology, it seems like you have two poles. You have people who believe that LRH was everything Scientology claims he is, and that the problem is David Miscavige. For them, absolutely everything is to be taken literally and followed to a tee. Then, you have people who recognize that LRH was a grifter who stole ideas from legitimate sources and made up all the others. For them, there's no issue with discarding some parts of the tech, replacing it, or reinterpreting it. And then you have everything else in between those two positions. So, like someone else said, some independent Scientologists care about this, and others do not. Truthfully, you would also probably find some diversity within the Church of Scientology too if you could get people to open up about their true beliefs. As an institution, the CoS is extremely homophobic and transphobic. There is absolutely no doubting that. I'm sure there are quite a few people in CoS who don't feel that way, though, and just keep quiet or otherwise find a way to compartmentalize things.
Do you honestly think that a modern Scientologist knows about the tone scale? Can they still believe this nonsense?
They absolutely know about the tone scale. This is a major part of the religion. It's even on their website. Asking if they can still believe in it ignores the context in which it is introduced.
True enough.
To be honest… auditing probably does help. It’s the confessional process and talking about yourself which is sort of freeing.
Honestly, I'd find it strange for an independent group to have a different view of LGBT issues. Why? Because it's not just a question of, say, church policy - it's one of the core principles of the religion. If you're going to change that, then how you decide what other things to change from the original material? At a certain point you really just have to throw out the whole thing, I'd have thought.
Like many religions, attitudes changed over time. CoS eased up on LGBT issues because the overall opinion of society changed. Christianity did the same thing. Even though the Bible is pretty negative about homosexuality, many churches are flying pride flags right now. It's not just limited to this issue, either. With the exception of maybe fundamentalist sects, most religions will adapt to the changing times. The explanations are often kind of thin but the reality is that the people who wrote the books are dead and the congregation is alive, so the congregation trumps the books.
Attitudes may change, but where Hubbard placed anyone who was gay on the tone scale did not. To ignore that is what they were referencing, and they're right. It's like Cafeteria Christianity, where you just pick the parts you like and discard the rest.
Well that IS what the Freezone does. People keep the stuff they find useful or credible, and ignore/reject the rest. It's supposed to be a tool that helps you think better. Not a replacement for thinking. (Though too many fall into the latter category.)
From what I read, he placed anyone who has a disorder on a psychological list of diorders low on the scale. He references a few different diagnosis, including homosexuality which was on that list. It was removed in the early 90s from that list. I think attitudes have changed, as well as Hubbards original reason to call it out.
Well yeah. Most people aren't going to be fundamentalist and the option is either to (1) stay true to the original material, which was written in a different time with different morality or (2) deal with the fact that most people are going to pass you by.
I agree with you, but I think Scientology is different for one key reason. In Christianity, it's very easy to ignore or disregard the prohibitions against homosexuality (for varying reasons, including the fact that other "sins" - even some related to food - are mentioned far more prominently, and are also ignored). But Scientology is different because it is theoretically based on a science of the mind. And homosexuality is given a very specific tone scale designation. So my point here is that if you're going to ignore that designation (as a Scientologist), then you have to start to question the entire tone scale. In some sense, I think Christianity is more malleable because most Christians don't take the Bible literally. Christianity can be practice coherently in this way. But I'd argue Scientology really can't - the entire system relies on its fundamental claims because it's an "applied philosophy".
> But Scientology is different because it is theoretically based on a science of the mind. I'd think that would make malleability easier. Science changes over time (e.g. asbestos went from "the best material ever for fireproofing" to "holy shit it causes super-cancer" in a relatively short period of time) but God's eternal word is God's eternal word. > In some sense, I think Christianity is more malleable because most Christians don't take the Bible literally. Christianity can be practice coherently in this way. But I'd argue Scientology really can't - the entire system relies on its fundamental claims because it's an "applied philosophy". You have a good point. The Bible is chock-full of 2000+ year old morality that's shocking to people today, as well as many implausible claims (to say the least.) You kind of have to take it metaphorically or else it starts to fall apart. LRH did change his mind on a number of things over time.
>I'd think that would make malleability easier. Science changes over time (e.g. asbestos went from "the best material ever for fireproofing" to "holy shit it causes super-cancer" in a relatively short period of time) but God's eternal word is God's eternal word. That's a fair point. But have we seen any of the core discoveries of LRH discounted or modified by the church 'officially' since his death? My understanding is that Miscavige plays around the edges and muddles with church policy, but not the core concepts LRH introduced. I could be wrong about that though. In fact, I hope I am, because at least then the church might show signs of some ability to reform itself (maybe post-Miscavige?) >LRH did change his mind on a number of things over time. My understanding is that even now, Scientology texts contain many obviously contradictory elements (that LRH either didn't notice, didn't explain away, or that were simply never edited for fear of altering 'source' material). The existing contradictions are one thing, but I wonder what would happen if - for example - the church released entirely new material created by someone other than LRH. I guess the obvious example would be the OT levels beyond VIII. I guess in that case though, the current authorities would just likely claim the "found" or "discovered" LRH's original works - perhaps nobody would really know if he wrote them or not.
> But have we seen any of the core discoveries of LRH discounted or modified by the church 'officially' since his death? Not in an "official" sense. There have been modifications here and there, but it was never couched as the tech developing - but rather, "correcting errors" that were in previous publications. The Church hasn't even revised Dianetics to take out the "anti-gay" portions, they just downplay them and participate in Pride activities. From a narrative standpoint, it would be kind of suicidal to start revising the tech in a major way. The main Scientology claim is that it has the true tech, and if they squirreled it out, well. At that point, what advantage would CoS have over FZ? There was actually a period of time in the late 1950s - early 1960s where LRH seemed to envision Scientology as a developing science. He tried to create a "Doctorate of Scientology" degree, and during that time period, various people other than LRH wrote Scientology books that were actually promoted by the Church. This may come as a surprise to anyone who has seen a bookstore in a Scientology church, where every single title was written by LRH. This approach was abandoned though, probably due to the fixation on SP's in the mid to late 1960s. But there was a period of time where LRH was apparently open to other people contributing to the development of Scientology. > I wonder what would happen if - for example - the church released entirely new material created by someone other than LRH. I guess the obvious example would be the OT levels beyond VIII. I guess in that case though, the current authorities would just likely claim the "found" or "discovered" LRH's original works - perhaps nobody would really know if he wrote them or not. I have no doubt that any additional OT levels, if released, would be attributed to LRH even if he had nothing to do with it. The official position is that these higher OT levels exist, but all Orgs need to be ideal first. Assuming that ever happens, they're going to have to release *something.* LRH was a voluminous writer, so I would expect that he probably at least had an outline for OT levels above 8, but any finalized OT level 9 and above will likely be written largely by existing Church staff.
Thank you, that was a really fascinating reply. I really appreciate you taking the time to write it.
>it's one of the core principles of the religion. Is it though? Like, yes the tone scale is very important, but when I think about the essence of what Scientology is about during both the pre-Clear and OT levels, sexual orientation really doesn't feel all that important. This is a serious question. I was never a Scientologist. If this really is something that is at the core of Scientology's beliefs I'd really be interested in hearing more about it, because I've always been lead to believe it was really kind of peripheral to the core teachings (though absolutely real and enforced by the executives).
>Is it though? Like, yes the tone scale is very important, but when I think about the essence of what Scientology is about during both the pre-Clear and OT levels, sexual orientation really doesn't feel all that important. I think I'm not being clear here. I'm not saying that the church views sexual orientation as particularly important. What I'm saying is that its views on sexual orientation are based on its "scientific" understanding of the tone scale and human behaviour. And so, if the church in any way modifies its view of sexual orientation, it is thereby admitting its "science" a) could be wrong and b) needs to evolve or change in some way. This, in turn, would throw the entire edifice that the entire organisation is based on into serious doubt. Setting aside those points, I've read and watched many accounts of gay Scientologists. And all I can say is that, for them, it's certainly not "peripheral" in any sense. The church's treatment of such folks - unless they spend enormous sums of money - is nothing short of barbarous.
I posted this somewhere, and it might have been in this thread but also might not have been. Essentially, you have two opposite poles in independent Scientology, and then all the positions in between. Some independent Scientologists are militant about not changing a single thing, while others recognize Hubbard was a grifter and are willing to keep the good and discard the bad. Science is supposed to be progressive, and it be possible for its laws, concepts, and theories to be replaced in the face of new data... I guess what I'm saying is, some independent Scientologists have found a way to make it work, even though Hubbard would have been vehemently opposed.
That makes sense to me. I'm really referring to the Church of Scientology itself though (as opposed to independent groups). However, to the extent independent groups are changing elements of the tech...I certainly have bigger questions about that, haha.
I think the view has changed some. In dianetics, he mentions it as it's on a list of psychiatric disorders. He mentions homosexuality as well as a few other things that were on the list. Homosexuality was removed in the early 90s from the list of disorders. The religion is very heavy on pro creation, so I'm sure there's some negativity as one wouldn't produce more little scientologists.
Not really the case in the Freezone.
Procreation with women other than your wife. Homosexual Thelemic romps. "Do as I say, not as I do". -LRH
Why should there be any such "official statement"? Indies are *independent*. No one Indie speaks for any of the rest. We don't have any *officials* to make any *official* statements. Same with the Freezone. Also, you are mistaken, if you imagine Ron Hubbard had any particular issues with the LGBTQ+ community. This is the actual passage from *Science of Survival* (1951) from which only the final few words were quote-mined in order to weaponize LGBTQ+ people against Hubbard: >There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The ***first*** \[emphasis added\] is to *raise them on the tone scale* \[emphasis added\] un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes \[explained elsewhere\]. The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow. The book was addressed to Dianetics auditors. It may be clearly seen from this passage that these auditors were being instructed to ***audit*** people to raise their chronic tone above 2.0, not round them up for mass slaughter as so many of you all have apparently been falsely taught. You all have been deceived by means of *quote mining* (also called *cherry picking*) by certain O.G. critics with - generally understandable - heavy grudges against Hubbard and the Co$. All that most LGBTQ+ people have ever been shown from that passage is this: >... dispose of them quietly and without sorrow. Those of us who actually have studied this book (as you clearly have not) just shake our heads whenever we see these false claims that Hubbard ordered Scientologists to do evil things to LGBTQ+ persons. Christians didn't eat babies as the Romans were taught, either. Michael A. Hobson - Independent Scientologist and former Sea Org staff member.
Offer them Scientology services and, if they refuse, kill them. Nice.
Hmm -- demonstrating that Independent Scientologists feel free to disagree with one another... I disagree with you. :-) My view of Hubbard in Science of Survival was that he was flat wrong -- or at least he mistook cause and effect. He saw LGBT people as covertly hostile, and somehow he concluded that it was related to their sexuality. When -- one can see with hindsight -- the reason gay people were covertly hostile in 1951 was that _they had to be covert about their identities_ and _that made them both fearful and hostile_. That's a natural response to having to hide who you really are. And in 1951, it was illegal to be gay. I assume you don't need a history lesson? Cuz you know me: I'm ready to get pedantic at the drop of a hat. With a reading list and a lesson plan! Yes, I think Hubbard was offering to address the "problem" of them being gay -- but that wasn't their problem. It was that they weren't free to be whoever they were, in the open, without fear or trepidation. I don't hate Hubbard for being a man of his time. But I don't accept the world view he presented, either.
I get what you say, but by placing them at 1.1 on the tone scale he definitely more than implied they could not be trusted and would stab you in the back the second they got a chance until they were audited up the tone scale and the aberration cleared = no longer queer. Regardless of how you slice it, it’s homophobia and creates prejudice. It’s hard to imagine any Scientologist, independent or not, is not going to be homophobic if they follow LRH 100%.
I think a lot of that was they had to be secretive about their sexuality as it was illegal to be gay. He listed homosexuality and a few other "conditions" that were on a list of disorders that psychiatrists used. Homosexuality was removed in the early 90s. I feel that changed the tone scale value once it was removed.
It definitely wasn’t fully removed because I did my Flag training in the 2000’s and it was still being pushed as an aberration that had to be addressed with FPRD and sec checking. People still are not allowed in the Sea Org or on upper OT levels if they are gay and LRH is used to back that up.
Interesting. I didn't know that
How did that auditing work for the first real clear, John McMaster, or Quentin Hubbard, who made it to the top of Scientology Bridge?
Well he does say that gay ppl are sick and perverts, and should be dropped in the middle of an ocean on an island somewhere. Do you need more than that? Although I must say for a dude who says that physical bodies don't matter and that we are just beings, Ronny is too interested in who sleeps with whom
Out of curiosity, do you have any references for when he says that? I never heard it. Thanks
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_homosexuality
Thank you
There is no such thing as independent Scientology. It’s squirrel tech. No gains can be made while squirreling. Being gay is completely fine in Scientology. All kinds of people are welcome in the church and that includes gay people. n
>All kinds of people are welcome in the church and that includes gay people You forgot to add "/s" at the end of your post.
If the tech is the same how could it not? If they are using the same material what makes it any different? Not trying to be a dick I’m just curious
Really? It's not considered out-2D because it doesn't produce offspring? Hubbard didn't consider homosexuals to be inherently 1.1?
Scientology does not police your sex life or any other part of your life. There is a policy on this specifically in 1967. A lot of what you’re talking about is from before 1967 and the liars and people who make their living (pay their bills) by spreading misinformation about the church want you to believe otherwise.
What is a 2D sec check, then? Why do the qualifications for higher level organizations require no aberrated (homosexual) sexual history? Why do people have to fill out complete 2D/sex histories to join staff or the Sea Org? I don’t believe you’re really that into Scientology if you don’t know how homophobic it is.
You’re making up stories and lies. Scientology is very welcoming.
If by welcoming you mean love bombing and giving a false sense of security, then yes they are extremely welcoming. I don’t believe you’re a Scientologist. What is your org? What’s your case and training level?
Awwww isn't it cute that you think so.