A Scientologist Responds
Some time ago I wrote a post about Scientology, suggesting that Mormons ought not to be too smug writing-off Scientology as weird and cultish, when some of our own excesses would also tend in that direction.
Greg, a Scientologist, has offered the following response to the assertion that Scientology is weird and cultish:
I totally agree with you that all religions sometimes engage in cultish behavior. (Of course when a NRM does it, it’s a “cult†and when a two-thousand-year old religion does it, it’s considered “devotedâ€. Double-standard anyone? But I digress.)
I would just like to say that it’s worthwhile to separate what Scientologists actually DO say and believe from the things our enemies say we do or believe.
EXAMPLE: Tom Cruise says he’ll eat the placenta:
ANSWER: It was a *joke*, people. He said it to GQ as a joke. Of course he never did such a thing. (Although I hear there are people that do.)
EXAMPLE: Tom Cruise attacked Brooke Shields for taking medication during baby blues.
ANSWER: No. Tom Cruise questioned the prudence of Shields *publicly recommending* a dangerous drug when she is not a doctor and not properly informed. (Paxil is an addictive powerful psychopharmaceutical, and numerous cases of violent behavior are related to its use.)
EXAMPLE: Tom Cruise does not believe in Post Partum Depression.
ANSWER: Wrong. He simply suscribes to the theory that this condition is best treated by hormone treatments, vitamins and proper nutrition (monitored by an MD) and counseling.
EXAMPLE: Scientologists believe that Hubbard is immortal and will come back from the dead.
ANSWER: We believe we’re ALL immortal spiritually, but we are NOT expecting anyone to be coming back from the dead (not even Elvis). We believe the Spirit moves on.
EXAMPLE: Scientologists prevent women from talking during labor
ANSWER: We *recommend* that all talk is kept to a minimum, but this is especially directed at the doctors and nurses - who tend sometimes to be too chatty. See www.silentbirth.org
EXAMPLE: Scientologists believe in an Evil Galactic Emperor.
ANSWER: No, we don’t. Hubbard did some research into past lives phenomena and wrote down what he found in thousands of cases. We accept the possibility of Hubbard’s research into the metaphysical to be true. Which does not mean that this rules our everyday behavior. We rule our conduct by moral codes and ethical codes related to improving society in the here and now.
EXAMPLE: Scientologists pay for salvation.
ANSWER: No, we pay to support our Church, which we deem worthy of support. There are plenty of free services available in a Scientology Church. And many Scientologists donate *without* receiving a service in exchange, simply to be a patron of a good cause.
Anyway, none of this is intended to proselytize. I’ve lived among Mormons in SLC and consider LDS a legitimate religion that creates a sane, vibrant culture with excellent values. All I’m saying is, don’t believe all the crap that they write about us. I certainly don’t believe all the crap the tabloids write about you. Fair enough?
suggesting that Mormons ought not to be too smug writing-off Scientology as weird and cultish
Ronan, honestly, this was not what the post about the Scientology Rule said. It took the “fact” that Scientology was weird and cultish for granted and made that the basis for a “rule” by which Latter-day Saints should regulate their behavior — if it sounds like something Scientologists would do, then we ought to reconsider it. I was uncomfortable with it from the first day. I am glad a Scientologist is responding to it.
Greg: [I] and consider LDS a legitimate religion that creates a sane, vibrant culture with excellent values.
Thank you for your generosity in the face of the “Scientology Rule”. I am very sorry that Scientologists are treated very poorly in many places, particularly in European countries such as Germany.
All I’m saying is, don’t believe all the crap that they write about us. I certainly don’t believe all the crap the tabloids write about you. Fair enough?
Amen. It’s not only fair but mandatory, in my view.
Comment by john f. — April 2, 2007 @ 4:23 am
Sigh. John, the post was inspired by the Rolling Stone article that made Scientologists sound awful (and I mentioned the RS article right away). It was always about perception: RS made Scientology sound very cultish, but it was apparent to me that some of the things we do both sound cultish, and could well be cultish if taken to extremes. I have no time for cultish behaviours whether in my own religion or in any others. I know the post bugged you, so we’ll just leave it at that. I am happy to offer Greg the space to make this corrective (as he sees it).
Comment by Ronan — April 2, 2007 @ 5:44 am
What I said:
“As I read the article, I realised that a similar description of Mormonism could make us seem cultish.”
“If your religious behaviours are such that if practiced by a Scientologist and observed by you would seem cultish, reevaluate them pronto!”
I did not intend this to mean the Scientology was cultish (although it may well be, I don’t know enough about it), only that some of the things reported by RS made it sound cultish. I was responding to the irony that I had only read the RS article because I followed a link from BCC. Thus the point was that Mormons having a chuckle at Hubbard’s navy ought to be aware that, for example, our missionaries are perceived by many to be of a similar stripe.
Comment by Ronan — April 2, 2007 @ 6:07 am
I see. But Greg also makes a good point. You can write an article about any religion that will make the subject religion sound cultish to the reader.
Comment by john f. — April 2, 2007 @ 6:09 am
I really don’t know anything about Scientology and, unfortunately, have formed an opinion based on the antics of some of its members (Tom Criuse) - clearly an incorrect thing to do. I was glad to hear, once again, counsel from the church leaders in conference this weekend asking to respect other religions and the rights of the members of other religions. I thought President Faust’s talk in the Sunday morning session was particularly wonderful in pointing out the standard of Christian behavior that we should all follow that was set by the example of the Amish community that experienced tragedy earlier this year.
We can certainly form our own opinions about whether certain religious movements are cultish but if we want to avoid the same labels about our own religion we should maintain respect for others as long as their practices don’t bring physical harm to us (OK, so you could make the argument that any religion that leads us in a path other than the straight and narrow one is harmful - even physically - to our well being but I think that’s an argument for another day.
By the way - can some of you who are more knowledgable about Scientology expound a bit on the virtues of that relgion? What are some of it’s positive aspects, if any?
Comment by lamonte — April 2, 2007 @ 6:20 am
John, indeed. But we can surely agree that some religious behaviours are cultish. The silly Scientology Rule (and it could have been the JW Rule) offers a way to help evaluate ourselves.
“Would this look cultish?”
No > Cool, move on.
Yes > “Is it cultish? Does it do people harm?”
No, it just looks that way, perhaps, as is the case with many religions when viewed from outside > Cool, move on.
Yes > BE CAREFUL!
This is a question that I think all religions, from Catholicism on down, need to constantly ask themselves. Sometimes the only way a believer can do that is to step out of the box and take a wider view of religious excess.
Because the serious point is this: we can all see religious excess in others (Philippino crucifixions, the Opus Dei cilice, JW blood transfusion angst, Islamist crazies, Jesus Camp, etc. etc.) but we never see it in ourselves. That’s all I’m saying.
Comment by Ronan — April 2, 2007 @ 6:26 am
I’m not sure if Greg will read comments, but I’d be curious to know whether what he states above would be the beliefs of 100%, 80%, 50%, 20%, or 5% of Scientologists.
To draw an analogy: If you asked someone from FAIR, FARMS, or (most of) the Bloggernacle whether they thought the Book of Mormon was the story of all of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas, I’m pretty sure you’d get a different answer than if you polled the average Sunday School. I know you’d get a different answer if the question concerned polyandry.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — April 2, 2007 @ 7:12 am
I’ve read quite a lot about Scientology, and have been to some of their events. I’ve read Dianetics and a few biographies of LRH. I am really interesed in his story. It’s extraordinary.
I have firm opinions about Scientology, but this seems to be a forum for encouraging tolerance and understanding, so I’ll go along with that. There are striking parallels that a cynical member of the church could make: a founder who is seen as a charlatan by the greater world; interesting twists in what is considered doctrine and what is not over time; a reluctance to deal with difficult issues up front; an active and aggressive proselytizing effort; and the list goes on. That’s not the last word on the topic, but
Full disclosure: I am probably counted among their members as I had an auditing once.
Comment by Norbert — April 2, 2007 @ 7:49 am
Sorry to leave my ‘but’ hanging there; I was going to say,
Comment by Norbert — April 2, 2007 @ 7:52 am
I’ve done quite a bit of reading and there’s some good to be found in scientology…but I’ve been to one of their churches (I was talked into it), took the personality test, and that was one of the worst experiences I had last year. Just walking by that church still gives me the creeps.
That being said, this is a thread of tolerance and understanding; so I’ll quit now.
Comment by Sherpa — April 2, 2007 @ 8:44 am
Thanks Greg for your informative response. All the Scientologists I know are remarkable people. But I guess that kind of information doesn’t sell newspapers. *sigh*
Comment by cj douglass — April 2, 2007 @ 8:51 am
Greg, I appreciate you taking the time to clear up some common misconceptions. We Mormons are, or at least should be, big believers in getting information about other faiths primarily from adherents of said faiths.
Comment by Kevin Barney — April 2, 2007 @ 9:00 am
What Kevin said. Thanks, Greg, for sharing your point of view.
Comment by Tracy M — April 2, 2007 @ 9:06 am
EXAMPLE: Scientologists believe in an Evil Galactic Emperor.
ANSWER: No, we don’t. Hubbard did some research into past lives phenomena and wrote down what he found in thousands of cases. We accept the possibility of Hubbard’s research into the metaphysical to be true. Which does not mean that this rules our everyday behavior. We rule our conduct by moral codes and ethical codes related to improving society in the here and now.
This sounds exactly like a common LDS attitude toward the Lorenzo Snow couplet, especially the first half.
Comment by Aaron — April 2, 2007 @ 11:00 am
No it doesn’t, Aaron, even if you are Geoff J. Don’t distort
Comment by HP/JDC — April 2, 2007 @ 11:13 am
This shouldn’t be a problem any more: my daughter wasted him at Disneyland.
Comment by gst — April 2, 2007 @ 11:45 am
“EXAMPLE: Scientologists believe in an Evil Galactic Emperor.
ANSWER: No, we don’t. Hubbard did some research into past lives phenomena and wrote down what he found in thousands of cases. We accept the possibility of Hubbard’s research into the metaphysical to be true. Which does not mean that this rules our everyday behavior. We rule our conduct by moral codes and ethical codes related to improving society in the here and now.”
Asserting that “Scientologists believe in an Evil Galactic Emperor”, I admit, doesn’t get at the truth. However, what Greg isn’t telling you is are what Scientology’s “upper levels” are wholly focused on, i.e., the removal of ‘body thetans’ (see Wikipedia) which were exported to Earth by the Galactic Lord Xenu, this is kept secret from those who have yet to reach these Scientology levels, which is the majority of Scientologists. Thus, his answer is technically correct, but it brushes aside the above fact.
“EXAMPLE: Scientologists pay for salvation.
ANSWER: No, we pay to support our Church, which we deem worthy of support. There are plenty of free services available in a Scientology Church. And many Scientologists donate *without* receiving a service in exchange, simply to be a patron of a good cause.”
This is a flat out lie. Every Scientologist believes, above all goals, in the individual promise of Scientology, which is that, if you go up “the bridge”, you will achieve “Operating Thetan”, which is their article of faith, i.e., their version of spiritual salvation, and there is no free version of “The Bridge”, any one of the two paths available (training or ‘auditing’) to go up The Bridge, will set you back many tens of thousands of dollars. It is a quid pro quo deal, all the way.
For the record, I was a Scientologist, and a member of the elight “Sea Org” (see Wikipedia), though I have since abandoned the so-called faith.
For more information, visit my website at thaddeusgadfly.com
Thaddeus
Comment by Thaddeus Gadfly — April 2, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
Here’s what I want the straight dope on. Let me illustrate by means of a Mormon example.
FACT: Mormons believe that God is an exalted man called Elohim who lives near a star called Kolob.
But, here’s what’s important.
Mormons don’t talk about Kolob much, and when they do, they kind of joke around with it. Also, the embodied God doctrine, whilst important, has a bit of wiggle-room and belief in it is not an essential creed or anything. In other words, “temple” Mormons need to show a belief in God, but no-one asks you to prove your belief in Kolob.
So, Xenu and Kolob are pretty weird I suppose, but what I want to know is whether Xenu is Core Doctrine as Gadfly asserts, or peripheral esoterica as suggested by Greg.
Comment by Ronan — April 2, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
Well, that’s just preposterous. Anyone who doesn’t believe that Elvis is coming back doesn’t deserve a moment’s consideration.
Comment by DKL — April 2, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
Thaddeus, I enjoyed reading through your blog/website. I particularly enjoyed your post of March 28th “Losing the ‘Religion’.” I was shocked by the institutional formality of the so-called “Condition of Doubt.” Fascinating.
I’m curious if there are many families in Scientology, or if it is more a religion that is a collection of individuals? And what happens when a family member loses the faith?
Comment by Matt Thurston — April 2, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
It’s important to point out that Scientology is a faith that defines itself in opposition to the field of Psychiatry. There’s a tremendous focus on opposing anything Psychology-related.
They sponsor numerous ancillary (critics would say front) organizations such as the Citizens Commission on Human Rights. The CCHR maintains a multi-million dollar anti-psychiatry museum:
http://www.cchr.org/index.cfm/13207
It’s well worth a visit if you’re ever in L.A. and want to see something truly weird (hmmmm, I suppose you can get that just walking down the street…but I digress). Suggestion: Don’t tell them if you happen to work in a mental-health related field. It will make for a much more pleasant visit.
In answer to Ronan’s question, I’m pretty sure Xenu is peripheral esoterica.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — April 2, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
To MikeInWeHo who writes:
Xenu is anecdotal, but Scientology “upper levels” are focused on his exports, “body thetans”, and so, Scientology is, essentially, a body thetan (see Wikipedia) removal service. Hubbard teaches that mankind is psychically infested with the ghosts of extraterrestials (body thetans), exported to earth 75,000,000 years ago. It’s not peripheral in the sense that the doctrine on the upper levels is focused on this bizarre teaching, though Scientologists are not told of it before they reach a certain level.
To Matt Thurston who writes:
There are many families in Scientology, the exact number I have no idea. Scientology reports 10 million members, yet the US consensus reports only about 55K persons identifying themselves as Scientologists. Factor in the rest of the world, maybe double that figure.
If a family member loses faith, nothing happens, unless the family members becomes a vocal dissident, as I did, and if anyone wants more information, see my blog, entitled “My Promise To The Church Of Scientology”, which might shed more light on this.
Thaddeusgadfly.com
Thaddeus
Comment by Thaddeus Gadfly — April 2, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
I constantly peruse news stories about Scientology, and find very little accuracy in mass media coverage.
Tellingly, the most accurate are the most favorable. Something about clear-eyed investigation dispels antagonism and prejudice.
But if the head of a local Scientology Mission were to, say, run a light and cause a collision, s/he deserves no more and no less coverage than a Baptist minister or a Rabbi who did the same.
But, unfailingly, the press would seek to blame that Scientologist’s inattention or carelessness on his religion—which only happens when the person is a Scientologist.
Aren’t you glad media don’t blame your mistakes on Joseph Smith, Jr.? We Scientologists put up with that type of sloppy reporting all too often.
But I think there is no such thing as accidental long-term ignorance.
Thank you for this column!
Comment by Analisto — April 2, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
I’m surprised that this column, supposedly dedicated at tolerance and understanding, would gladly accept the comments from Thadeus -a self-confessed dissident/apostate of another faith- and take them at face value.
We all know how loudmouthed and vitriolic ex-Mormons can be, for example
Also, I can’t help but notice that no ex-Member of any religion ever posts “I screwed up so they kicked me out” - it’s always some sour-grape tirade about how they got disilussioned.
Comment by Cisco — April 2, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
If the Scientologists pour into BCC because of Ronan’s post, this could all get very Battlestar Galactica on us…..
Comment by MikeInWeho aka Gayus Baltar — April 2, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
First of all, I really want to thank the Admin for posting my letter, and I appreciate the discussion.
Now, to Ronan, re: comment #18
Practice of Scientology does not actually require ANY belief. Unlike other religions, Scientology is centered on learning of methods and doctrines and putting them into practice in real life. No belief-system of cosmology is required.
Scientologists DO have a culture which tends to include some generally accepted cosmology, a general agreement of speculation about the nature of the Universe. This is not, however, a belief system per se, as nobody is *required* to ascribe to it or not.
Hubbard’s research into past lives falls exactly in this category. It is neither central nor anecdotic - it is considered a reference point for practitioners and counselors, it is an FYI in terms of subjective phenomena people might run into in session.
Scientologists are discouraged from any type of blind faith.
The reason why I absolutely insist that the whole esoteric stuff is NOT centric to Scientology is because it does not rule our everyday choices, it is not part of dogma or practice, and it only comes up if one chooses to pursue -and is invited to partake of- the Upper Levels. (which, BTW, Wikipedia does not report accurately.)
Some further myths and answers:
MYTH: Scientology past-life and space-opera stuff is secret, and one needs to pay millions to get it
ANSWER: Such information is readily available in any Scientology organization in the form of taped lectures, such as “Ron’s Journal ‘67″ and “The Whole Track Tapes” or “The Route to Infinity.”
Also, studying such levels does not take millions, it costs approximately the same as a college education, and more importantly it is by invitation only to people who have proven their humanitarian worth by good deeds and volunteerism (www.volunteerministers.org)
MYTH: The space-opera is our “Creation Myth”
ANSWER: We Scientologists are actually much weirder than that! LOL. We believe the Universe is a LOT older. This incident you’re discussing -which by the way it is considered VERY tactless to discuss, among Scientologists (as you’re supposed to study on it only once you’ve proven you’re ready for it, and previous discussion only biases your perception of it) - anyway, the incident you’re discussing is by no means our understanding of how the Universe got it’s jumpstart.
Oh, and Ronan: Kolob, Elohim - weird? Out of bounds, my friend. It is bad form to call esoteric aspects of any religion “weird” - as we could then discuss burning bushes, virgin births and landings on Mount Sinai, etc. - even water turning into wine - all of these would seem pretty unusual to outsiders.
Also, I’ve noticed you’re letting an ex-Scientologist chime in. One of the reasons why I’m leery of comments by ex-members is that, in my opinion, one of the primary reasons that people abandon Scientology is because they *did not understand* some principle of set of principles, which tends to screw up one’s progress and limit one’s gain. So it is common for an ex-member to voice some pretty strange interpretation of Scientology doctrine.
best,
Greg
Scientologist and proud of it
http://www.liveandgrow.org
Comment by Greg — April 2, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
Greg’s web site, if you dig around in it, does mention Mormonism at least once:
http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/part12/Chp36/pg0654-d.html
Comment by MikeInWeHo — April 3, 2007 @ 12:16 am
#25 - But what I want to know Baltar is, are you the last of the final five cylons??
Comment by Rebecca — April 3, 2007 @ 3:36 am
If you are feeling dizzy with the huge gulf between what different sources say about CoS … get used to it. That was my experience when I was looking into things.
I wonder if people looking at Mormonism have the same feeling, or is there a way to get between the official line and the dissonance?
BTW: I know some CoS families, but my understanding is that is very rare outside of SoCal.
Comment by Norbert — April 3, 2007 @ 6:18 am
To MikeInWeHo (# 27)
That’s not my website though. That’s one of the official Scientology sites. (Mine is http://www.liveandgrow.org)
Comment by Greg — April 3, 2007 @ 6:34 am
My mistake, Greg. Your site must have linked me over to the official one at some point.
Scientology has a HUGE body of writings and so much new terminology that one can read and read and read for a long time and still have a hard time really understanding it. At least that has been my experience. They do seem to get some unfair PR. I don’t see why they should be considered a “cult” any more than the Church should. The few Scientologists I’ve known here don’t seem brainwashed or weird at all. On the contrary, they seem kind of, well, together.
That said, I find the whole anti-psychiatry obsession just bizarre.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — April 3, 2007 @ 8:55 am
Ronan, thank you for allowing Scientologists a fair response.
“Cult” is one of those loaded words… loaded with prejudice.
Any religion, indeed any group of people, can be ridiculed. It says at least as much about the speaker as about the target.
I myself, a Scientologist for many years, have defended the Mormon faith in my work environment, overhearing a prejudiced discussion in a nearby cubicle. I told the speaker it was not appropriate conversation for the workplace. I believe each person should be able to follow their own religion without harassment. If a religion, or call it what you will, encourages people to improve themselves and to help others, more power to it. Thanks again for your frankness and fairness.
Comment by Emer13 — April 3, 2007 @ 11:20 pm
The Web site I mentioned, http://www.ScientologyHandbook.org, is free and offers several useful lessons on underlying priciples of living that, if carefully studied and used, can put one in very good shape to handle previously murky and exasperating factors of life.
But this information is for USE in the walk-around world. Don’t expect a breezy read to change your life, la-la. The old Turkish proverb says “Life is real. Life is Earnest.” They nailed it.
Too many “philosophies” deal with reading, thinking, bandying polysyllabic Greco-Germanic words, and playing with half-formed, ill-defined ideas and nebulous possibilities. I wonder if existentialism ever helped anyone make a smarter decision on whom to marry, which job to take, or whether to travel or volunteer or study programming. Not in my exams.
There’s not a life problem, a people problem, or a personal problem where you can’t apply some aspect of Scientology, and come closer to–or hit dead-center–the positive result that fits you best.
I look at it as my tool-box for life. It’s for people who want change, and to change things. That may be why it grows.
Comment by Analisto — April 4, 2007 @ 12:40 am
Greg’s examples seem to be rather questionable in their accuracy. For instance, Greg says that Tom Cruise did not attack Brooke Shields for taking Paxil for postpartum depression but merely “questioned the prudence of Shields *publicly recommending* a dangerous drug when she is not a doctor and not properly informed.”
* Cruise publicly stated that Shields “is an incredibly talented woman, you look at [and think], where has her career gone?” In what way is implying that Shields’ career has gone down the tubes not an attack?
* Where did Shields ever “publicly recommend” Paxil, or any other drug? Stating her own experience, that Paxil helped her, is not “publicly recommending” Paxil — any more than saying “My life was saved by a triple bypass” is recommending to others that they should go out and get triple bypasses too.
* Greg suggests that Cruise’s protests came from Shields being “not a doctor and not properly informed.” Is Greg suggesting that if Shields was a doctor, and said “from my knowledge as a doctor, Paxil should be regarded as a valid treatment option,” then Cruise would never have held her up for public criticism as he did? Or would he have said that Shields must be “not properly informed” if she regards Paxil differently than he does? If the latter, how exactly does Tom Cruise get the expertise to make that decision, since he is not a doctor either, or even a college graduate as Shields is?
Comment by AF — April 6, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
Greg wrote:
Also, I’ve noticed you’re letting an ex-Scientologist chime in. One of the reasons why I’m leery of comments by ex-members is that, in my opinion, one of the primary reasons that people abandon Scientology is because they *did not understand* some principle of set of principles, which tends to screw up one’s progress and limit one’s gain. So it is common for an ex-member to voice some pretty strange interpretation of Scientology doctrine.
Thaddeus responds;
I find it amusing that of all the possibilities one might abandon Scientology, Scientology only mentions mainly three, which are possibile, I admit, which are (using layman’s language):
1. Misunderstanding. 2. Association with antagonists. 3. The person is evil.
The other option they conveniently ommit, probably because the reason does not serve their agenda, which is a plausible alternative is: 4. It doesn’t work as promised.
I invite anyone to my blog, read my opinions, Greg’s answers, others answers, and my replies. Decide for youself, go to the Church of Scientology, look around, read books, go to Greg’s site, but also read my blog, and others, do your homework. Take your time before you let go of your hard earned cash, that is my recommendation.
‘Nuff said.
Thaddeus Gadfly
Comment by Thaddeus Gadfly — April 8, 2007 @ 11:21 pm
Ed Decker and FAIR, eat your heart out!
Until you’ve seen Scientologists and their critics go at it, you haven’t really seen a theological conflict. Those folks play hardball.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — April 9, 2007 @ 12:29 am
you know what I also hate about Meridian? how many freakin readers it has. Goodness sakes.
I only read Meridian to make fun of it, I’m glad I’ve never submitted anything there, that would be so embarrassing. Besmirch a good image forever.
And I’ve heard that don’t really like Scientologists.
Comment by amri — May 10, 2007 @ 4:08 pm