Could the Co$ survive with a Third Leader

[freethinker]

Debbie Cook was interviewed after the TRO trial. She was asked in the interview if she thought the Church could be salvaged after all this.

I don't think that someone can slip into the position of Church leader and pull it off for a 3rd time after all that has been revealed.

What are your thoughts?

[Smilla]

It would probably get by, but it would be greatly shaken.

[Man de la Mancha]

Debbie Cook was interviewed after the TRO trial. She was asked in the interview if she thought the Church could be salvaged after all this.

I don't think that someone can slip into the position of Church leader and pull it off for a 3rd time after all that has been revealed.

What are your thoughts?

The church should never have another "ecclesiastic leader". That would be L. Ron Hubbard and, like Jesus, he is no longer with us. That's why there's a bust in every org, and a crucifix in every church. End of story.

Assuming there is another regime, it should simply revert to the corporate triumvirate set up by LRH. If that had remained in place there would be no dictatorship.

And yes, I do believe Scn can rebound from all this and wind up in even better shape than previously. It's so close to happening, but noone has the balls to defy RPF, child neglect, and disconnection policy. It's really their own fault - LRH never asked to be worshipped (although he never complained when he was!).

LRH's "Purpose Over Policy" PL authorizes the elimination of RPF, child neglect, and disconnection. Noone will do it. Why?

[Type4_PTS]

I don't think that someone can slip into the position of Church leader and pull it off for a 3rd time after all that has been revealed.

It would be difficult but IS possible imo if done correctly.

They don't have to convince everyone, and even if there's a mass exodus they've got a billion+ dollars stashed away which can help to recruit some new suckers with which to rebuild.

In the age of the internet with all the info out there it will be more expensive to do this but they are masters of deception and when fanatics are determined to do something along these lines it is possible, if not likely.

[Thrak]

I think something to remember is that according to Cook, they have a billion in reserves and are basically living on the interest. If that's true and they don't get their assets frozen, and Davey doesn't scuttle the ship on his departure, they can do what they want and survive wether new public comes in or not.

I'm really hoping some more "OTs" start popping up and telling what's happening behind closed doors.

[Caliwog]

I think the whole Debbie Cook trial is giving credence to the idea that the problem with Scientology is the current regime. (I find myself feeling sympathetic for Debbie Cook, despite knowing better.) Regardless, Scientology's overall situation will never change.

I think it's unlikely that the Church will emerge with a third leader. Unless DM decides to off himself - which I suppose isn't beyond the realm of possibility - he is unlikely to give up control of the Church for the greatest good (which is off-policy). That said, with all its assets, I don't see how the Church could possibly go out of business. Although the focus on DM could have one positive effect: Investigation leading to elimination of the Church's tax-exempt status.

I suppose it's possible that a re-formed Church will arise with Marty Rathbun or someone similar at its head.

Regardless, Scientology will end up back in the news, because the abuses are hard-coded into the tech. We seem to forget that there were no "good old days" of Scientology. Read The Scandal of Scientology (http://www.xenu.net/archive/books/tsos/sos.html) or listen to David Mayo's lectures (http://www.freezoneearth.org/downloads/files.html - scroll down) for a reminder that everything happening now, has happened before.

Scientology is a scam, and no amount of PR can change that.

[anonomog]

"...because the abuses are hard-coded into the tech."

That ^^^

Despite the fact that it is a laughing stock, there will be some new people willing to give it a go. It could survive and start again...I just see it following the exact same formula straight to hell again.

[Lohan2008]

A re-formed Church will arise with Marty Rathbun or someone similar at its head.

^^ this ^^

[Petey C]

I think the whole Debbie Cook trial is giving credence to the idea that the problem with Scientology is the current regime. (I find myself feeling sympathetic for Debbie Cook, despite knowing better.) Regardless, Scientology's overall situation will never change.

I think it's unlikely that the Church will emerge with a third leader. Unless DM decides to off himself - which I suppose isn't beyond the realm of possibility - he is unlikely to give up control of the Church for the greatest good (which is off-policy). That said, with all its assets, I don't see how the Church could possibly go out of business. Although the focus on DM could have one positive effect: Investigation leading to elimination of the Church's tax-exempt status.

I suppose it's possible that a re-formed Church will arise with Marty Rathbun or someone similar at its head.

Regardless, Scientology will end up back in the news, because the abuses are hard-coded into the tech. We seem to forget that there were no "good old days" of Scientology. Read The Scandal of Scientology (http://www.xenu.net/archive/books/tsos/sos.html) or listen to David Mayo's lectures (http://www.freezoneearth.org/downloads/files.html - scroll down) for a reminder that everything happening now, has happened before.

Scientology is a scam, and no amount of PR can change that.

I pretty much agree with everything here.

The seeds of Scientology's current chaos lie within Hubbard's writings and as long as there are church CEOs who believe Hubbard is Truth, it'll come to the same state in the end.

So what would a new CoS look like? Would it have an SO? And RPF? What would they pay their staff? If they had to pay a fair wage, they would be going broke quicker than you can say knife. Their business model is not sustainable for the 21st century. And to change the business model would mean saying Hubbard was wrong about a thing or two.

I admire and respect Debbie's steadfastness and courage, no doubt about it, and her strategy was brilliant. I see the email as a dare to the church to put her in court, and once she was there, she could say her piece under oath. But her blind spot is her apparent unswerving faithfulness to Hubbard. Hubbard is what will bring the CoS unstuck, in the end. As Calliwog says, the hardass attitude is hardcoded into Scn.

Seems to me that it's about views of integrity. For a Scio, integrity means taking the whole of Hubbard's writings and actualising them. But Hubbard's writings lack integrity as they largely based on hyperbole, lies and fantasy.

Ultimately I think some form of church will stumble along with a committee or two and a head or two, but there will be a lot of pressure to act legally from staff, SO, public scios and we apostates, as well as the world at large which I'm sure has enjoyed seeing this hubris. It might take them a decade or two to spend all their assets down, then what?

[ClearEyed]

I think the whole Debbie Cook trial is giving credence to the idea that the problem with Scientology is the current regime. (I find myself feeling sympathetic for Debbie Cook, despite knowing better.) Regardless, Scientology's overall situation will never change.

I think it's unlikely that the Church will emerge with a third leader. Unless DM decides to off himself - which I suppose isn't beyond the realm of possibility - he is unlikely to give up control of the Church for the greatest good (which is off-policy). That said, with all its assets, I don't see how the Church could possibly go out of business. Although the focus on DM could have one positive effect: Investigation leading to elimination of the Church's tax-exempt status.

I suppose it's possible that a re-formed Church will arise with Marty Rathbun or someone similar at its head.

Regardless, Scientology will end up back in the news, because the abuses are hard-coded into the tech. We seem to forget that there were no "good old days" of Scientology. Read The Scandal of Scientology (http://www.xenu.net/archive/books/tsos/sos.html) or listen to David Mayo's lectures (http://www.freezoneearth.org/downloads/files.html - scroll down) for a reminder that everything happening now, has happened before.

Scientology is a scam, and no amount of PR can change that.

You're right. There were no good ol' days. Just some days that weren't quite as bad as others.