“The Church is Your Only Hope”

Section 5 of Part 4 – Some Things I Have to Say About All This

Dave, you may not agree with what the church is doing, but it is the only organization that has the tech that is going to set you free spiritually.  Now you’ve blown your chance by getting declared.

OK, now this is one of the biggest lies that the church puts out.

First, I can see that the church is a squirrel group.  I have pointed out enough examples of blatant out-tech on a wide scale to point that out.  That means that whatever the tech is capable of doing for you as far as setting you spiritually free, the church is no longer the place where that would be possible to occur.

I already said that I can’t trust the church to keep my overts confidential.  I know that whenever I would get off overts that I would, by that very action, be stuck at the same time with the present time problem of how these overts would be used against me should I ever make known my disagreement with any of COB’s squirrel programs.  So much for case gain.

I’m no longer making excuses for the inordinate amount of OTs dying of cancer.  You who are from Chicago and who’ve been in Scientology for half as long as I was know personally of at least two of those, plus one suicide and one who had completely lost her mind and could not operate at all.  Since I left the church I’ve read many more accounts (not about people from Chicago) of OTs dying of cancer and at least one who committed murder!  I’ve read two people’s accounts of how they felt suicidal on the plane home after attesting to OT VIII!!

Even assuming that Scientology offers the road to Total Freedom, there is no way I would ever trust the Church of Scientology with my personal eternity.

But another lie is the idea that the Church of Scientology is the only entity that delivers the tech.  It is not true that the church is the only place you can get Scientology if you want it.

There are many many auditors and groups of auditors around the world, having no connection to the official Church of Scientology, who deliver the tech, and that includes the OT levels and the Ls.

It is NOT true that it is illegal by law to deliver Scientology outside of the sanction of the church.  This one of the biggest lies there is.  You DON’T need a license from RTC and no law enforcement agency is authorized to stop someone from delivering it.  If RTC approval was something that was needed to deliver auditing or training per the laws of the land, you can bet your life that COB would see to it that every one of them was fined or jailed by law enforcement for doing it.  But that is not the case.  I have talked to some auditors who are independent from the church and they have been delivering Scientology for a living for many years and none of the ones I’ve talked to have ever had any law-enforcement agencies even try to stop them.

You may think it’s dangerous for anyone to accept auditing from anyone outside of the church because they may not be delivering it standardly.  The church calls anyone who delivers the tech without their approval a “squirrel”.  I noticed that in the “dead agent handling” I received that they no longer use the word “squirrel” to mean “someone who misapplies the tech or invents off-beat processes”.  It now is implied to mean, “someone who delivers Scientology without church approval.”  The word is used to make it seem like the church is the only entity that delivers the tech standardly (and the church does not deliver it standardly anyway) and that everyone that they don’t approve of, by definition, alters it and uses it in a harmful and dangerous way.

It is NOT true that anyone who delivers auditing outside the church is a squirrel.  It IS true that many of the auditors and C/Ses in the church are squirrels.  Certainly there is wide-spread out-tech being committed in the church these days.  At the very least, they all have a verbal altered definition of a floating needle.

If you receive auditing outside of the church, you are on your own as to whether your auditor happens to be standard or not, and whether or not you are in good, safe hands.  You have to take responsibility yourself to see to it that your auditing is standard.  In order to do that you have to know the tech well enough to make such a judgment and not just blindly do whatever you are told just because you are told to do it, and not just go on thinking that your auditor knows best and you don’t have to know anything.

But you know what?  That’s always been true.  It’s always been true for when you have gotten your auditing in the church, including at Flag.  Flag tells you that when you’re on OT VII, you have to come back every six months and get sec checked no matter how you are doing on your auditing, and you don’t even know that there is a bulletin expressly forbidding it.  Or, if you do know about this reference, you still “reason” that the church tech terminals somehow know best.  That’s just one example.  All you had to do was read that bulletin, which is in the Tech Volumes in any org.

So, one may consider it unfortunate that they can’t just trust anybody to use the tech standardly on him or her, without having to know how it’s really supposed to be done, but that’s just the way it is.

But, when you get auditing outside of the church you can find auditors who do audit standardly.  Some of them left the church many years ago because they had the knowledge and understanding to see that it wasn’t being done right in the church, and many of them can be counted on to do it right.  You have the ability to achieve the understanding of which ones you can count on to do it right.

Even the OT levels are available outside of the church and they are not all squirrel versions.  The actual OT levels are available and known and used outside the church.  There are also several Class XIIs, former church auditors, who deliver the Ls outside of the church.

And it is possible to know who’s doing it right and who isn’t.  But, there is way too much evidence that it is far too risky to do these actions in the church nowadays.  If you state your disagreements with out-tech, you are putting yourself in danger of accusative and false ethics actions.

The non-church auditors audit at a fraction of the cost.  Add to that the fact that you don’t have to be audited with the present time problem of how many reges (and other staff going off-hat to become reges) are going to gang up on you after the session to take from you every possible dollar they can.  You don’t have to donate tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars for no direct exchange in order to be allowed to advance to your next level.  You don’t have to endure being sec-checked within an inch of your life, at your own expense,  for the slightest thought about how maybe things shouldn’t be being done the way they are being done.  You don’t have to go to ethics for disagreeing with the leader’s arbitrary edicts and you are not required to buy your way out of lower conditions that only act as wrong indications in the first place.

And even if you were required to do any of those things you can just leave and go somewhere else for your auditing if you wanted to.  Nobody would harass you or hound you or print slanderous lies about you or try to make your life miserable just because you didn’t agree with the way you were being handled.

So, no, I haven’t given up anything by leaving the church, but quite the contrary.  I am free to live my life the way I see appropriate and I don’t have to do anything that doesn’t make sense.  If I want Scientology, I can have it and I don’t have to go broke to get it.

Next…“You Abandoned all Your Friends”

Advertisements

7 thoughts on ““The Church is Your Only Hope”

  1. OT22 says:

    Very well answered! This issue is exactly what prevents lots of members from leaving the sinking ship … They need to know they can get standard auditing outside.

  2. Looking 4 Myself says:

    All of the Scientology Bridge is available outside of the Church. Even parts of the Bridge that have mysteriously disappeared over the years(like the Primary Rundown).

  3. Polymath says:

    If I’d known there even WAS an independent field I’d have gone there in the first place! Unfortunately I got in before the Internet became widely popular.

  4. davefagen says:

    Same here. For whatever reason, it never even occurred to me that there could have been another place to get Scientology than the church. It would have been the smart thing to do, given some of the craziness that I witnessed, experienced and participated in from the first week.

  5. webyourstuff says:

    Actually, I guessed there was. It occurred to me that with so many decent people being mistreated and/or off-loaded, there HAD to be a Scientology Underground. I actually tried searching on those words.

    Once you find out there is freedom available, how can you easily give up on it?

  6. cemz says:

    These auditors outside the church can not et their meters silver certed. Please address this point. Thanks.

  7. davefagen says:

    Cemz,

    I have quite a few things to say about this.

    The first is that I agree that you definitely want a fully working, operational meter. You definitely wouldn’t want your auditor to miss things that need to be taken up, you definitely wouldn’t want your auditor to take up things that shouldn’t be taken up and you wouldn’t want your auditor to miss the fact that you were finished with something.

    When you read my blog, if you can agree with my logic and understandings of the things I have found out and written about here, I don’t think you could trust the Church of Scientology to audit and C/S you. Look at some of the examples in my sections “Out-Tech in the Church”. And the rest of my blog and every source from which I got my information and more. Abuses and squirreling are out of control.

    So why would anyone trust someone from the Church of Scientology to see to it that their meter is run correctly? I wouldn’t. Maybe they do a good job but I don’t know. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to find out that they squirreled that as well.

    So what do you do? Well, there are people who used to be in the church and who calibrated and repaired meters in the past, and I would trust them more than I would trust someone in the church. You can search the internet and find someone who knows how to do it correctly. Here is a link to one that I have found (it is the second one on the list of two servicers of meters): http://www.freeandable.com/business-listings/by-category/97-e-meters.html

    As I said in my blog, you have to have enough knowledge to take responsibility to see to it that your auditing is done correctly by your auditor, even if you are not the one doing the auditing and are not fully trained. You can know for yourself whether you are being squirreled on if you know the basics of the subject well enough. The same is true for e-meters. Just as you don’t have to be a mechanic to know whether the person fixing your car is honest and competent, the same is true for e-meters.

    These independent meter repairmen don’t give you an official silver cert, I would guess. But as I said, how much can you trust the validity of that certificate if you can’t trust that same organization to audit you?

    What’s important is whether or not you are being audited or are auditing someone else with an accurate, operational meter. It is your responsibility to see to it that that is the case. You should know enough to tell when that is the case and when it is not. It’s not important whether or not you have the “authoritative” certificate from an “authority” with such a bad track record in recent times.

    I have seen the criticisms of Marty Rathbun about how he uses uncertified meters. I think these are very lame attempts at discrediting him in order to get people who are in doubt to turn away from him, and then to think that anyone who audits without the sanction of the church is dangerous simply by the fact that he doesn’t have that sanction.

    What is important is whether or not the person audits correctly, with all of his TRs, metering, auditor beingness and procedures being done in the way that acquires the expected results. THAT is the only criteria of whether or not someone should be auditing or not. It has nothing to do with who says it’s okay to do it or who doesn’t say it’s okay to do it.

    I hope I have addressed this to your satisfaction.

    Dave

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s