Thanks to Lawrence Brennan for the above quote.Rather the purpose is to make new scientologists.
And that is what they are trying to fool libraries, businesses and schools into helping them do - spread Scientology and make new scientologists.
I asked Kerry Gleeson yesterday and he personally verified that the Bill Franks on FB is the real Bill Franks. The Bill Franks on FB is the same one that is on this Board right now and befriended me shortly after I asked him to from this forum.
Kerry's website and contact details are easily verified - he's been a successful writer these years past. But Kerry does not wish to talk about Scn or get involved with any of this. He is 100% WOG now and therefore only keeps friends on his FB that are ex's who DON'T discuss Scn with him or on his FB.
I believe that Bill Franks is new to forums, the board and the entire ex and Indy and Anonymous scene. It seems to me the first people that contacted Bill Franks were Independents from Marty's group, and these are people Bill knew personally so he trusts them and perhaps has been more mild in his comments or views of Scn because of this.
I think he really is entirely new to the whole ex scene as well as to forums, Mystic. You knew him. Why don't you ask him to get on his FB and give him a personal rundown and history of who is who and where they are?
Jesse Prince was in the same situation a year ago.
The birds they sang at the break of day, start again I seemed to hear them say.
Do not dwell on what has passed away or what is yet to be.
Hubbard's policies on acceptance of patients (preclears/parishioners) is so legally cleverly worded as to cover his ass, but in countries that don't recognize Scientology as a religion, well those countries with stronger qualified psych practitioner laws OUGHT to go after Scientology's therapy that is NOT peer reviewed.
Agreed, of course the research is not there.
In the US, with all sorts of quack treatments and mental practices going on left right and center, getting their coincidental placebo benefits by their well intentioned (and some who are absolutely just smooth quacks as well) practitioners, Scientology as a religious practice, because it gets into exorcism at the "upper levels" (OT 3-7 levels are high volume exorcism, which is a spiritual practice, the dead alien spirits that Xenu mass murdered and had implanted with the 36 and 1/2 days of mental crazy science fiction implants) Scientology at the upper levels is exorcism, a spiritual practice.
So really it's a more complicated mess.
We don't even have anyone in the media or scholars talking simply about Scientology.
Scientology's not even simply defined.
It's talk therapy at the lower levels, and it's exorcism at the upper levels.
It really needs a couple of focused books, that really settle simply, some focused simple explanations of what it is, in simple neutral language, and then it can be dissected for what it is.
To me, the biggest "con" LRH has pulled, is the word game he's got Scientology locked into perpetuating, of what Scientology is.
They don't call themselves exorcists, but they do a hell of a lot of exorcism on OT levels 3-7!!
Peer review I meant, of their lower level talk therapy levels, like all the talk therapy that make up the bottom half of the Bridge to Clear.
I'm thinking squirrely type of peer review, like some psychotherapists borrowing and changing any of the lower bridge up to Clear, sort of like how Serge Gerbode did with his Traumatic Incident Reduction therapy he delivers.
That to me is what I meant about "peer review" and I meant MORE like what Serge did, but for the Grades 0-4, the before Clear talk therapy stuff.
The upper levels OT 3-7 exorcism of the dead space aliens that supposedly infest all of us, no one in the licensed psychotherapy field is gonna touch or try to peer review the commands and practices for contacting body thetans and running Incident 1 and 2 on body thetans and on body thetan clusters, that's NOT needed to be peer reviewed. That's obviously a spiritual practice, as ludicrous as that practice is to the average man on the street.
So to clarify, I meant peer review sort of like how Serge Gerbode did with engram running, which I believe he's adopted in some form, in his Traumatic Incident Reduction psychotherapy practice.
I'm for squirreling any "good" out of Hubbard's lower level talk therapy, that's the best I can see in Hubbard's works.
I don't buy Hubbard's bridge as sacrosanct, and the only way out for mankind, etc, etc.
body thetan removal, the OT 3-7 high volume exorcism of the dead space alien souls, that's religious stuff, so let the Scientologists sort out how to deliver that to themselves, if they want to do it.
ex Sea Org (1975-2003)
"I think a lot of my father's stuff doesn't work. So I false report whenever I need to. Personally, I think my father's crazy."
- Quentin Hubbard Class 12 Scientologist, statement to Dennis Erlich
I recently discovered the "ignore list" feature this sites' software has, so that one can block out certain posters if you tire of their rantings and vitriol. It has been a blessing and made the thread very much more enjoyable.
I have a very good understanding why certain individuals lace every single post with demeaning comments about either Hubbard or the Tech. Really, I get why you do that.
But that doesn't make it any less annoying when I come here intent on learning or hearing the viewpoints of those who were/are involved in the subject. I come here occasionally for entertainment, education and community. Not for the constant battering about Hubbard and the "tech" put forth by some.
When I caught wind of Bill Franks posting, I wanted very much to hear what he had to say. Like most others, I want the whole story to come out.
Unfortunately the haters will not be deterred by your query Marcy. I strongly recommend the "ignore list". PM me if you need help finding it.
Chuck, I see your point. But dissecting Scn as itself for any therapeutic value is a painfully arduous task. I don't think it's worth it. I think it's better to let the various spinoffs achieve their own momentum, because besides all the control aspects of it and the fact it is untested, the stated Bridge results aren't achieved. Scn doesn't target specific mental illnesses or other problems with specific procedures. It's all a general "feel better" sort of thing, so doesn't lend itself to scientific review. Those of us who have studied other therapy methods have found some of the concepts or procedures helpful here and there, but most are not.
If this is really something you want, then I suggest you take a methodical approach to it from the other direction. Rather than going through all the materials as such, why not start with a specific benefit that you feel is attainable in whole or in part by some part of Scn tech and work it against similar proven therapies and find if it increases benefit or results in that area?
What exactly defines a "hater"?
Would you consider Paulette Cooper a hater?
How about the relatives of Lisa McPherson?
What about "disconnected" family members who cannot talk to their children?
I have yet to see someone actually define that term so it has any useful meaning.
What do you say?
Scientology literally saved my life! Without Ron's books I would have frozen to death!!! (see avatar)
Scientology in one word? HelluvaHoax!
I never felt as free as when I freed myself from "Total Freedom".
For offended Scientologists reading this blasphemy about L. Ron Hubbard---my apologies for talking about real life without lying to you, like Scientology, with goo-goo theta-talk. I know you don't have a floating needle right now. You're not supposed to.
Yes lurkers you are not alone, everyone thinks Scientology is creepy, it's not just you