I find it inconvenient when the questions go past 200 and I have to click to go to the next page to see the most recent questions and answers. I’m sure you do too. So, I’m starting yet another Ask a Question thread.
There are some really great questions and discussions in Ask a Question 1, 2, 3 and the just-retired one, 4. I always enjoy going back and reading them.
You want to know something about Scientology or the Church of Scientology, ask here! You have a suggestion? Put it here. You want to start an argument or discussion? Here is the place. All non-troll, non-spam comments, suggestions, arguments, corrections are greatly appreciated.
Scientologist’s contributions are still welcome. Trust me, I don’t bite.
As always, I love to hear from you.
–
Ask the Scientologist 
@Swami,I'm sure that Hubbard felt that his work was in the same vein as epistemology, pulling useful information from anywhere and everywhere and fitting it into a new framework. The problem, of course, was that the framework was just his idea, without proof or verification and so instead of pulling useful, verifiable information, he was cherry-picking stuff based only on whether it fit in his model.Because of that, the end result is mostly self-consistent, but it really doesn't function. His predicted and promised results never appeared.True believers are dazzled by the complexity of his construction and don't notice the almost complete lack of results.
Is there a finite number of thetans? If not, how are new ones created?
There are, according to Scientology mythology, a finite number of thetans. How many is an open question but the number is, essentially, uncountable. Just taking Earth as an example, there are some six billion people and each one has thousands of "body thetans". That means trillions (at least) on this one planet. Then, according to Hubbard, there are trillions of inhabited planets. Well, that's the story.
Hello, Bill, and thank you again for your informative website. I read on wikipedia that, in addition to about 500 Scientologists that work at Gold Base, about 100 non-Scientologists also work there. Seems like that group would have stories to tell, but I've never heard of anybody fitting that description. Do you know what those non-member employees might be hired to do? Lawyers, maybe?
That doesn't sound at all accurate. As far as I know, there are only Sea Org members working at Gold Base. At various times outside workers have been brought in for special work, but they don't stay long since that would be "out security". The only non-Sea Org worker who regularly works there is Dan Sherman – "L Ron Hubbard's biographer” – and David Miscavige's speechwriter.
Does Flubbard have an explanation for the mere existence of thetans? Is this just a "trust me" thing?Where/when did the first thetan exist? If it didn't start with just one (asexually speaking) or two (biblical speaking) then what explains their massive existence?
Do thetans have a gender? Can one get trapped in the opposite gender (i.e. Al/Kate Bornstien)? How is this supposed to be handled?
To my knowledge, Hubbard never offered any explanation for where thetans came from. What is clear from his lectures is that (according to his mythology) thetans existed before this physical universe and some were even responsible for the creation of this universe. There were, according to Hubbard, many universes before this current one — some of which were ruled by Magic.Also, according to Hubbard, thetans have no gender but can have a preference for one or the other.
If I showed up at a big org for advertised Scientology "Sunday Services," what kind of event would I encounter?
The "Sunday Service" is defined in Scientology policy. Let's see if I remember… There is a large book that contains short articles by L. Ron Hubbard specifically for this purpose. The "Chaplain" (whichever staff is picked for that) reads an article from the book. They might ask for "wins" from the attendees, then they all recite the "Creed of the Church of Scientology" and, that's it.Every Scientologist in the field is supposed to show up. Nobody does, so usually they just skip it. If you showed up, they'd put on the show for you.
One of the Sea Org slogans is something like "Many are called. Few are chosen." I know they like to see themselves as "elite": does the Sea Org actually turn applicants down? What does it take to make the cut?
Re: Sea Org recruitsYes, they actually do reject people, but not many. If you have "too much" debt they are not supposed to accept you. If you have ever taken LSD, they are not supposed to let you in. Pretty much anyone else is in. They've even recruited non-Scientologists straight off the street to get their "stats up".I say "not supposed to" because it all depends on how desperate they are to recruit a specific person. If they really want you, the rules can always be bent.No, not particularly elite.
IIRC, they also do some "group processing." That's a kind of auditing aimed at the whole room. It's pretty amusing: commands like "be the wall, be the ceiling" and so on. lol
dear bill i hear Scientology was founded on a bet and you believe in aliens is that true
Re: Two questions"Scientology was founded on a bet"Highly doubtful. While there may have been talk like "I'll bet you …" (who would know for certain?), that wasn't the motivation for Hubbard's creating Dianetics and Scientology.If you read about Hubbard, you will understand his motivation and I quote Hubbard "I will smash my name into history so violently, it will take a legendary form." He wanted to have faithful followers who would, essentially, worship him. That required he found a religion."you believe in aliens"Yes, Scientologists do "believe in aliens" because Hubbard said it was true and they may not disbelieve. Hubbard even speaks about "other civilizations" in the universe as if he has met them all personally. When Scientologists leave Scientology, they usually stop believing this.
Hi Just Bill,Do you know if the Tech Films are being shown in scientology academies any more? With high profile defectors such as Michael Fairman, Jason Beghe, and Dan Koon being prominent in those films, it seems that Miscavige would be quite reluctant to allow them to be shown on a daily basis, as these films have "the weight of an HCOB".
Hi Just Bruce,I actually don't know for sure. If there is anyone who has taken any of the tech courses recently, could they let us know?Personally, I can't imagine any films containing any of these "horrible defectors" are being shown any more. I imagine most of the films have been removed from the course checksheets and are listed as "being redone".And, I doubt they really are being redone. What would Miscavige do? No matter who he'd use, they would inevitably end up on his "SP" list and the film would have to be destroyed again. He's not going to be showing the old ones nor making new ones.
I just finished reading the book "Past lives Future lives" by Dr. Bruce Goldberg.He is a Dentist and had hypnosis training from "The American Society of Clinical Hypnosis". in his book he say there is no way to access the subconscious mind (bank) whiteout light or medium hypnotic trance. LRH said he is not using hypnosis and against it. so how his technology do access the subconscious mind (bank) without hypnosis? Ton 40? it is not hypnosis
This is difficult to answer because you have agreed completely with various people's assertions. You have a problem because one person's assertions don't match another person's assertions.Why believe Dr. Goldberg? Why believe Hubbard?I don't know anything about Dr. Goldberg but I do know that Hubbard extensively studied and used hypnosis. People who saw him work have said he was quite good at it. I'd not make the statement that there is no hypnosis in Scientology.But that may be quite beside the point. I'm trying to imagine the kinds of research and testing that would be required before Dr. Goldberg could categorically state that there is "no way to access the subconscious mind" except via hypnosis. Such an absolute statement would require that he thoroughly tested every single, possible method and found every single one did not work. Trust me, he didn't do that.Discount the unproven assertions of Dr. Goldberg and Hubbard and there really is nothing left.Bill
Dr. Goldberg also mention Drugs as a way to access the subconscious mind!
Do you have any information what is happening with the "Tech FIlms"–those movies designed to teach scientologists how to apply scientology to each other. As I understand it, many of the actors in these films are out of the church and criticizing Miscavige. Has he forbidden these films to be shown in academies now?
I'm not sure. Judging by Miscavige's past actions, just about all the tech films must have been banned by now. Little Davy has not tolerated the faces of anyone who has left to be shown. There would be very, very few films left on any of the courses.What interests me is what Davy is going to do about it. I really doubt he is scrambling to re-shoot all the films. First, there are very few people left to do the work. More importantly, he must know that, as soon as he released any new films, some of the actors in those films would escape and be declared.I know that Little Davy has been using "wogs" for various photographs as a defense against this sort of thing, but he can't do that for any tech films — he'd have to train them up to do the techy parts and they'd either laugh themselves silly or, well, become Scientologists.I suspect all tech films will, or have been, cancelled (for "out tech") and there will be no more.
I suspect this applies to most of the tech films but I know for certain that the Pro Tr’s film was redone as part of GAT 2. Apparently it is identical to the original other than having been updated.
Well, yeah! All the “Tech Films” had to be redone because everyone in the old ones had left or had been declared. I think David Miscavige has started using non-Scientologists for the films.
What is the level of education for the average Scientologist? My impression is that it has to be high school. Anyone with university training wouldn’t be able fall for the bogus science, astronomy, psychology, politics and history Hubbard wrote. For example, in a recent event Scientologists were told that near the end of 1945, Hubbard singlehandedly kept Richard Nixon and a group of rogue Caltech scientists from overthrowing the government by threatening to use nuclear arms and the Manhattan Project was going to fly Hitler and Emperor Hirohito over to watch an A-bomb demonstration from a giant grandstand in the New Mexico desert. What? Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of history and politics would find this implausible, even laughable. They wouldn’t be able to believe it.My impression is that Scientologists don’t have much formal education beyond high school. Am I right?
The level of education of Scientologists varies but is pretty average with the population at large which includes, of course, college graduates.I understand, but don't like, the idea that Scientologists must be pretty stupid to have fallen for all this. No, Scientologists are not, as a rule, stupid. It looks like they must be from today's viewpoint, but that isn't what Scientology looked like just a few years ago.Not that many years ago, most of Scientology was unknown, most of Hubbard's craziness was unknown. Scientology was very, very careful about its public face. Extremely careful. What you learned of Scientology and Hubbard was only what they wanted you to know until you were fully indoctrinated.The Internet changed all that. Anonymous changed all that. Now, all the crazy stuff is what you most see and hear. You rarely see the face of Scientology that they want you to see, the mild, logical-seeming, carefully selected information.And so you think, "Only a fool would fall for that crap". You're right, if that was what you saw, you'd be a fool to fall for that. But that stuff was not visible until only a few years ago.The church tries to keep their followers from seeing this new information by telling them that all the crazy stuff is just lies "made up to discredit Ron" and they must not look at it.But, please, don't judge all Scientologists based on what we all know now. The crazy information just wasn't available to us back when we got pulled into the cult.
So the book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health should really be called Dianetics: The Modern Pseudoscience of Mental HealthPseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories. A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.
Bill, once a Scientologist has been fully indoctrinated, is it even possible for him/her to be privately embarrassed or skeptical about some of the more outlandish tenets of the cult? Based on what I have read about Scientology true believers, I have to wonder if ANYTHING seems odd to them.
It is definitely possible for the indoctrinated Scientologist to be privately embarrassed and/or skeptical. It happens many times to most Scientologists.We, of course, never talked about it while we were in, but after leaving we started sharing our experiences. It is amazing how many ex-Scientologists will freely admit that significant parts of Scientology just "didn't make any sense". My personal experience was that I never wanted any non-Scientologists to know I was involved in Scientology — I was very embarrassed by what Hubbard and Scientology said and did.Why did I stay so long even though I was embarrassed? I was still indoctrinated and still believed in the basics of Scientology.See, now I'm embarrassed all over again.
I have 3 questions.1. According to the late L. Ron Hubbard, man is basically good, therefore I am assuming that Scientology members strive to be better, for example: take Tom Cruise, this man has been married 3 times, first to Mimi Rogers, then Nicole Kidman and currently to Katie Holmes whom from recently I heard has filed for divorce, that's 2 if not 3 divorces, and Mimi Rogers I believe originally introduced Tom Cruise to Scientology. If Tom Cruise believes in striving to be a better man "a better Spirit", why has he been divorced twice or three times? Why does he engage in violence, sex, foul language, disrespecting God and Christ by saying "God Damn" and "Jesus Christ in his films? He appears to be very passionate about the church of Scientology and it's beliefs, so how is he bettering himself by portraying criminals and vigilantees and engaging in what I mentioned earlier, how is he helping his fellow man or being a role model for youth in these films, does he justify it by being a philanthropist?2. What is the Church of Scientology's stance on homosexuality?3. What is the Church of Scientology's stance on Family?
Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes Splitting UpKatie has filed for divorce and is seeking sole custody of Suri, their daughter. Cruise, sources say, was surprised by the move. How could this be? Cruise is an OT VII and they are supposed to be able to read minds.From the book What is Scientology?: "Can OTs read minds? …to answer the question bluntly – yes, with varying degrees of ability". (First printing, 1978, pg.215)
OK. I'll see if I can answer these.1. Scientologists are not Christians. Do not expect Scientologists to adhere to strict Christian codes and values.According to L. Ron Hubbard, Jesus was an "implant", a false persona created by Evil People to control others. So, Cruise's use of Jesus' name is meaningless to him.Also, Tom Cruise is an actor. What he personally believes is not necessarily what he portrays on screen. Even Christian actors can portray people doing actions that they, as Christians, would never contemplate doing in real life.Most movies are not there to create role models for youth and no one expects them to. Certainly not the action films like Tom Cruise's usual films.2. Scientology believes that homosexuals are "aberrated", meaning they have become homosexual because of past horrible experiences. Scientology believes they can "cure" homosexuality by resolving these past experiences. This doesn't work.3. While Scientologists say families are important, their actions belie their words. Scientology is rather well known for breaking up families. If one member of a family does something Scientology doesn't like, Scientology will force all the other members of the family to "disconnect" from that person. Scientology will force children to disconnect from their parents, Scientology will force couples to divorce. Scientology has no shame in forcing families to break up and have no contact with each other for years and years and years.I hope that clarifies things. Let me know if you have further questions.Bill
Apparently not, eh?Such good news about Katie. She is smart, isn't she?
Hello, I have recently noticed something. Tom Cruise uses the word "clear" a lot. Most recently I noticed his Twitter bio uses the word "clear", it really stands out & is almost unnecessary. Other times as well, in particular I remember him & Jada Pinkett-Smith promoting a film (Collateral?) & she was saying he regularly said "let me be clear" or "are we clear?". I am wondering, might he think this is some sort of magic word?
While Scientologists are rather fond of the word "Clear", it has no "magical" connotations for them. Yes, it describes a state they all say they have achieved (but haven't), but the word itself has no special powers to a Scientologist.Not to confuse the issue but Scientologists actually do believe that some words have power over them. This is why they can't talk about the "confidential OT data". They believe that those words would kill them. The fact that the supposedly "secret" information is quite widely known and hasn't even given anyone a cold must be ignored by all Scientologists.
I saw the movie "The Master" when it came out and was greatly disappointed. It was weird as a film and certainly the Master, the supposed "LRH" character, was a well-meaning guru with a few character flaws. Very milk toast and very disappointing. It was as the director said all along, not about Scientology. A few details were, but at its heart, it wasn't.Your thoughts.
I haven't seen it yet. I will at some point. I gather that it was loosely based on Scientology-like cults but avoided being specific. I also gather that Hoffman's character was based on Hubbard. I hear it's pretty good as a movie.Bill
Pingback: Ask a Question | Ask the Scientologist