Jump to content

Talk:Space opera in Scientology/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Neutrality in "Non-Scientologists and space opera"

If one crefully reads the only paragraph in this article that talks about outside scientology opinion one finds that it is written in a way that disguises its lack of neutrality: out of roughly 1500 characters of this paragraph only 100 deal with non scientology opinion. one sentence of content is actually related to what the paragraph is about, while the remaining 11 sentences talk about other content, not related to Non-Scientologists in any way. i therefore mark this article with the Neutrality Disputed Flag.

I don't know who the anonymous editor was the left the tag, but I don't think the article deserves an NPOV tag based solely on this minor and unintelligible objection by this anon. Provide an explanation on how we can improve the article or better yet, edit the article to be more NPOV. We have lots of editors here that are willing to participate in improving it. Vivaldi (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sheer waste of time

This does not even deserve to be called CHURCH..This is nothing but science fiction. It is surprising how many fools follow this.

The same could be said of any religion.
Most scriptures are better written. As sci-fi, this is some pretty inane (albeit trippy) stuff. It's like he wasn't even trying. At any rate, this isn't the forum for a critique; let's try and keep this article's talk page uncluttered, 'kay? 82.166.53.176 15:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

True Encyclopedic Format

Some of the order of the sections needs to be brought together for a logical focus. Right now it is somewhat haphazard, with juicy bits pushed out of sequence to the detriment of article integrity.

Also an analysis of the actual point of contention from a NPOV vs is important. See the version with the section (The Roots of Space Opera) that section is informative, logical, and should included.

Stating "Space Opera forms a major portion of Scientology beliefs" is an opinion. It is an opinion that might be well founded but it is an opinion and not an opinion that any qualified professional person has stated. Qualified professionals would be Scholars, Doctors of Divinity and such. Persons of that education and level of competence have been queried and they have written their professional opinions about Scientology. May I provide the link? None of their opinions include "Space opera forms a major portion (or even a minor portion) of Scientology beliefs" That statement is purely the opinion of the author of the article. It is not documented, it is not stated as an opinion and yet no one takes the slightest hint of responsibility for it. That's just wrong, whether supported by Wikipedia or not. It might even be legally actionable by the COS unless stated as an opinion. Terryeo 23:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Please heed the advice given to you on Talk:Scientology and adhere to the official Wikipedia policy of not making legal threats. We can discuss this issue rationally without anyone trying to bully their POV into the article. If you are arguing that the Space Opera is neither a major nor a minor portion of Scientology beliefs, then are you saying that it isn't a belief at all? If that's the case, then what is it? -Silence 07:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I have read and understand not making legal threats and thank you for once again restating what ChrisO earlier told me :) I mean to put space opera into a context because an understanding of what Scientology is would include things like this. Scientology has beliefs. Basically it believes that humans are capable of knowing. On this single starting point the rest of it rests. The controvery arises when people view informations which are bonafide Scientology informations, but take them out of context without understanding the significance of such bits and pieces. Yes, there is space opera and it comprises maybe 5000 words of text out of 25 million words of text. That's my rough guess at it. Terryeo 23:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Title

Excellent article! The title may need some work ... it sounds silly. It comes from a POV that this is remarkable. How does "Space Opera in Scientology doctrine" sound to Scientologists? Is "Opera" normally capitalised? - David Gerard 6 July 2005 22:47 (UTC)

Let me tell you David Gerard, I am a Scientologist who is laughing uproariously. LOL. In maybe 25 million words of text, a stack of books higher than a basketball player's head there might be thirty or forty or even a hundred pages of space opera. But let me ask this. If anyone thinks for a moment any of LOL, any of space opera is true and important, just exactly how do you think Hubbard ever came up with it as real information? LOL Terryeo 14:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I'll go along with that... "Opera" shouldn't be capitalised; Hubbard doesn't use it as a proper noun, more as a descriptive noun. -- ChrisO 6 July 2005 23:24 (UTC)
Excellent article, ChrisO! The title doesn't bother me a bit. Hubbard certainly used the term often and freely, so I think it's an appropriate, natural title. Calicocat 6 July 2005 23:32 (UTC)
I meant the original title, "Space aliens in Scientology doctrine". "Space opera" is indeed a term Hubbard used a lot - David Gerard 8 July 2005 09:55 (UTC)
The second line of the article states: "It forms a major element of the beliefs of Scientology." This is simply false information. Scientology's most basic belief is: "If it is true for you, it is true, period." This means that any information should not become a belief. You should weigh, measure and decide for yourself whether anything you read anywhere is true or false. This isn't even a belief, but only good sense. Scientology can be said to have beliefs and Doctors of Divinity and others have written their professional opinions on them, but those beliefs are not of this nature. Any individual might or might not find Space Opera to be information useful to him. It is not a major element of the beliefs of Scientology. May I refer you to Scientology's stated beliefs here? Terryeo 04:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
So you're saying that the "Space opera" beliefs cannot be beliefs because the Church of Scientology claims that if an adherent of Scientology doesn't believe in it, it's simply not true, and if an adherent does believe in it, it magically transforms into a hard, cold fact? Sadly, if true, all of this is just another belief of Scientology, and fails to change the definition of the word "belief" from "Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons." to "Something believed or accepted as true that is not the space opera in Scientology doctrine." Once that change in definition occurs, you'll have more ground to stand on. -Silence 07:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I see you are attempting to ask a serious question so I'll try to answer in the same vein. When a person reads they assimilate what the page says. Then when they have duplicated what the page says they can combine that with what they know. Example, a guy knows addition, reads about subtraction, adds it to his knowledge, and so on. There is this tiny step in there, after he has duplicated the information and before it becomes part of his knowledge. At that point he can classify the information he duplicated by reading as "immediately useable", "never going to be useable" or somewhere in between. Scientology's spells this very obvious situation out by saying frequently and often: "If it is true for you, it is true period." And the 20 million (however many) words that make up Scientology should be examined in that light, I think any Scientologist would agree with what I just said. One might believe an individual piece of information and the next Scientologist not believe that. A lot of Scientology information is immediately understandable and useable. Myself, I'm not able to easily look 75 millions of years ago and see what was going on. But I have talked with Scientologists able, at least for a while, who were able to do that sort of thing. What they perceived at the time was real for them. From my point of view it is information. I don't know it to be true and won't defend it. On the other hand, should I become able to look through time and space, it might be information helpful to me. I know this responds to you, but I'm not sure it makes sense to you. Can I be more direct or responsive? Terryeo 15:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Wow, people who can evaluate articles based on an ability to look back 75 million years. I'd love to see their user page, or any cites :) Alastairward 12:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article push

Nice one. I think we can get this up to FAC status in a week if we try hard. Maybe run it past Peer Review as well - David Gerard 7 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)

Chris, this version of the article is even better - a featured article standard already. VWD :-) --NicholasTurnbull 7 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)

I've just nominated it for Wikipedia:Peer review. Let's see what the horrified masses make of it - David Gerard 8 July 2005 09:53 (UTC)

Good overview, though not as outrageously insane as Xenu (I was pulling my hair when I was reading that). I have two small comments to make: Do you think Space opera in Scientology would be a more concise title? Also, about the sentence beginning with, "Many science-fictional references...": Wouldn't Hubbard's view of these be more like similarities or parallels than references? CanadianCaesar 22:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Maybe. I've made your title a redirect, fwiw. You can of course make that change yourself :-) - David Gerard 15:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I know, but I know nothing of Scientology, or the terms they use. CanadianCaesar 01:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Count yourself lucky. (/me sporks own brain out) - David Gerard 10:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Cross your fingers. I've nominated it for the front page. -- Anonymous

Did it ever make the front page?--218.223.193.144 11:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Intro

I've moved a general para on space opera from Xenu to the intro. Could do with some untangling, though - David Gerard 15:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Consider it untangled. :-) -- ChrisO 22:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Article title

Would Space opera (Scientology) be a better title? Note that Category:Scientology beliefs and practices already includes several examples of common words with "(Scientology)" added to point out that we're talking about the Scientology term - David Gerard 10:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The article might work if it didn't state a completely false and misleading statement in its introduction. Space opera does not compose a major portion of Scientology's beliefs. Mr. Hubbard makes a few statements about space opera. in a stack of material 10 feet high, maybe 100 pages mention space opera. Whether an individual believes it or not is not in any way important in day to day, nor does it direct an individual in any way. Further, those Professional religious persons who have written professional opinions about Scientology do not view it as an important nor central belief and don't mention its value in their opinions. Terryeo 06:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
But all this space opera stuff is actually the meat of what you're paying for at higher levels. It makes sense that Scientology's major revenue generator = a lot of their core beliefs. Honestly, this really is the basis for pretty much everything Scientologists believe in - why else are there e-Meters? I think you're confusing the fact that it costs a boatload of money to find this stuff out with "does not compose a major portion." This is the BEDROCK of Scientology. Nice try though :)

Peer review suggestions

[below was content of Wikipedia:Peer review/Space opera in Scientology doctrine as at 21:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)]

A new article started by User:ChrisO, and already a masterpiece of understatement. Xenu (already a feature) is just the start of it. I'll probably go through housekeeping (detailed list of references at the end, etc.), but we're very interested in hearing of larger structural problems anyone can see. - David Gerard 8 July 2005 09:49 (UTC)

  • Buhhh... literally science-fictology. Almost like reading the old E. E. "Doc" Smith books. What can I say, it's entertaining and slightly amusing to read, but also a little sad. The trillion trillion years bit threw me a tad. Are those dates for real? Structurally it looks fine to me. :) — RJH 8 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)
    • Yes, those dates are real. Scientology believes that the universe has moved in cycles, existing for much longer than the 8 to 20 billion years proposed by scientists; while this is often hypothesized by theoreticians in the field of astronomy (Big Bang to Big Crunch to Big Bang again?), Scientologists apparently accept it as a hard-and-fast tenet of their faith. - Anonymous, 2.24 pm MST 15 July 2005
  • I'm glad to see all of the references, because I'd have a hard time believing anyone proposed this stuff was true otherwise. Some minor issues:
  • If I remember the relevant parts of Wikipedia's Manual of Style, quotations should not appear in italics, unless the words are italicized in the original.
  • The way Hubbard used "Space opera" in Scientology needs elaborating on -- including the fact that while this formed part of his secret Advanced Teachings, I believe he also used this as the plot for a movie script he tried to sell.
  • (Less seriously) Has anyone ever commented on the similarity between the implanting of "engrams" in the thetas & the premise behind Mystery Science Theater 3000? (The chief host is the unwilling subject of a mad scientist, who is subjected to endless exposure to a series of bad B-movies to determine how these can drive the subject mad, & use this information to make himself ruler of the world.) -- llywrch 8 July 2005 20:54 (UTC)
"unconscious recollection of events" ... "unconscious recollection of events" It's jarring to read the same four words again after only 150 words of space in between. Could one set be rephrased? lots of issues | leave me a message 22:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Ooh crikey, that one's my fault. Fixed - David Gerard 21:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm nominating this one for FAC now. Peer Review has been most helpful. Thank you! - David Gerard 21:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Featured Article comments

[below was content of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Space opera in Scientology doctrine as at 21:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)]

Another masterpiece of understatement from ChrisO (who wrote about half of Xenu). It's a fairly obscure subject ... but Xenu, which one FAC objection thought would be "too obscure", is now enormously popular in the blogosphere [1] [2] and is quoted in most of the recent press about Tom Cruise's proselytising behaviour (unattributed, but the phrasings are pretty distinctive). I think this has potential for enormous popularity. So it's a good thing it's well-written and has its references, isn't it. It went through peer review just recently, which helped a lot. I now open it to you to tell us what shrubberies (nice ones, mind you) it needs to be a feature. We've just started WikiProject Scientology too, by the way, so expect more of these - David Gerard 22:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Excellent, comprehensive, well-referenced, the mechanical gorilla is a high point. Sadly, there is only one really good illustration—the DC-8—but that problem is inherent in the subject, no doubt. Great stuff! Bishonen | talk 23:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, would do well with better illustrations, but it is indeed comprehensive and well referenced. Phoenix2 23:46, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The image Image:Fangio moss monza.jpg is claimed as fair use, but I don't think it can be used in the article under fair use. --Carnildo 17:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • It was probably fair use in the original article it was uploaded for, but yeah, it's been removed now. Images were a particularly difficult one for this article (though the gorilla is a good photo, and the Himalayas shot is spectacular - click on the image and check it out!) - suggestions are most welcomed - David Gerard 12:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Great work. The only thing I can say is really? You've really got all those sources and they really say all that? It all more or less falls in the category of the Fishman affidavits stuff I have read, so I believe you, but this stuff is still really hard to believe that people would really buy into it. Specifically the intro could use some citations, especially for this "It forms a major element of the beliefs of Scientology" and the next sentence. That may be really obvious to you, but it seems a central point in the article. Keep up the good work. - Taxman Talk 18:38, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Agree with Taxman. Anville 02:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Support, although the article itself is good, sections are of good size, there are too few pictures coming with the article. Deryck C. 09:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Suport, for all the reasons listed above. WegianWarrior 09:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Suport. pamri 03:50, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • comment Could audio pronunciations be added? lots of issues | leave me a message 23:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • weak object. Some of this is good stuff, but some of the sections (e.g. most of the "goals") are so short that they should be combined, expanded, or removed altogether. Right now, some of them have virtually no useful information. Incidentally, it should be explained what a "goal" is. Dave (talk) 15:27, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't recommend combining the goals and incidents - the article effectively provides a catalogue of the principal such events that Hubbard describes. However, I agree with your point about explaining what the goals are, and I've done this now. -- ChrisO 20:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I deicided to ask a Scientologiest about some of this stuff and see if he would shed some light on this. I thought what he said was worth repeating here. He asked not to be taken as a sorce but would give his opinion. Other than that he has been a member for over 20 years and says he is about half way thru the lvls. Sorry for the typoes, I don't have all that long to write this. 

Q. What is your view on Space Opera and what is it?

A. Space Opera is alot of what you would see in Sci Fi movies. Space ships, intergactic stuff, lasers and aliens. As for my view, well you asked about it with regard to Scientology? (Yes) It is something that its founder comments on - LRH. Most people have no idea why it would be apart of a religion. Thats understandable, it is out there. It comes from Auditing. It comes up WHILE auditing. Most Scientolgists have no idea what its about. But they inevitably run into it. Just about every one has at some point been apart of something like Space Opera at some point on their Whole Track (Memories that predate this life) and so it sooner or later comes up. LRH talks about it, mainly so that Auditors know what to expect. My view of it? I have run into it,... alot. ... (can you tell me anything about it?) Its out there stuff. ... (like what?...) Its rather personal realy. Lots of all the stuff you think of when you say "Sci Fi". But you should get auditing for yourself, then you can have lots of your own memories.

Q. How do you know if you realy remember anything?

A. That is a question that can get you into trouble realy fast. Who has the right to tell you if what you remember is real or not? No matter how they were gotten it is up to the person to sort out for themselves. But little things can help. I once saw a movie with space ships wizzing by. Then went and drew up the scamatics for an ion engene. I had never studied a thing before that. Then 6 years later I saw a Popular Science Mag with an alost mirror image of what I drew. They were not the exact same but there was no doubt they looked alike, the same machine with simular wording and everything. And that is with no study of any rocket engenes of any kind.

Q. I have herd of talk of a guy by the name of Xenu, in something that was to have happened 75 million years ago. I am told it is importiant in Scientology. What can you tell me about it?

A. Who? Never heard of him. LRH has said that there is are plenty of tramatic moments in the lives of thatens over the course of their existance. Some are ones people have in common. LRH said that talk of this stuff will just be problomatic. The insident he is talking about is one such moment. But it is taken up in one of the more advanced lvls. It was for Scientologists. It was simply a major problem that can up as blocking the road to freedom for Scientologists at that lvl. He talked about it in a lecture called RJ 67. I by no means would try to quote what he said but it had the jist of: It has a powerful effect on people but is simply out of reach for anyone lower on the Bridge (the lvls of Scientology) So much so that it would never even come up. Any effort of address it by Scientologists before they are ready is just trouble waiting to happen. So LRH never made it avalible to anyone but those he thought were ready to address it. If you see anything on it, realize that it is not LRH you are seeing. When LRH refered to it going public as "trouble" well... don't forget it is completely out of context, only quoted by people that -openly violating Church policy- are out to do just that, cause trouble. So what LRH said is drawned in context errors, incorrect assosation with other ideas only some of which are church related and all of which are out of context. The bottom line is that you will never know what he ment until you do what he says and get upto handling it the way he says. He ment it no other way, and he wrote it!

Q. I have seen some figures of the history of the universe where LRH has given some big figures! What is that about? Do you realy beleive its that old?

A. (he laughs) How big were those figures? (Something like 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,... alot! but I have also seen others) Others? Yes, he (LRH) has had some fun with that one. The most common one he uses is 76 trillion I think. But it is not real, its just a big fugure to "wow" ppl. One problem, from what I got, was that it didn't just start all at once. So giving you any exact figure would be open to problems. 76 trillion would be a figure that would say "at this point it looks like the universe we know today" but that is not LRH, that is just my example. Some scientiests say the universe is like 13 billion or something like that. Well.. what are they looking at? Perhaps that part is only 13 billion years old.

Q. Do Scientologiests talk about Space Opeara alot? Like to each other?

A. No. There are little things like hints but its just a fast route to trouble. Like I said many Scientologiests have yet to encounter enough to give them much to work with of their own. Often it only serves to to confuse people that have yet to get control of their own time tracks (past life memories). At some point, I imagine, if you were to get auditing you would likely have to striaten out something that I have said and I have not said much. If you can then imagine what it is like for people that jaber all day about it then you can guess that they could easily end up saying "I was a ruler of Egypt" only because his own pictures (memories)are mashed with some other guy's. And this can be a big problem to him and he can end up running around telling everybody, who in turn, ends up running around themselves saying, "I ruled Egypt". And that gives the hole subject a bad name. Later in auditing our first victum can end up wasting time pulling all this apart only to find out that he saw the Pharaoh for only a moment and on only on 1 occasion. But for something so simple it can cause alot of trouble! Scientologiests higher up (in lvls) can work it out much easier but there are other problems that can effect them too. So we all stear clear of that.

There was more but I think this is enough. Hope it helps.

Clarify the goals (FA request)

Just after the FA request was closed, Dave above added:

  • Could you add a descriptions of the confusion the goals allegedly cause? For example, if I'm supposed ""To End", "To be Dead", "To be Asleep", "To be Solid", "To be Sexual" and so on," what problems would that cause in me today? Why is it important to "clear" all of these? If this is added, I think I'll be ready to support. Dave (talk) 14:00, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

- David Gerard 14:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Image:Xenu space plane.jpg

Image is on the Main page but doesn't show on the Article page. hydnjo talk 02:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

There was a problem with the image wiki-format. I have corrected it. Autopilots 02:46, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Now it's on the article page and not the main page. RSpeer 06:20, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

User:Raul654 believes that there is a problem with the image servers. Hopefully, it will be resolved soon. Autopilots 06:48, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

After my thoughtless deletion which was reverted the image still does not appear (at least for me) either on the article page or on the main page. Lucifer(sc) 15:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep reloading the page until it does :-) I've left an HTML comment in the source for the next person who think's it's just a dead image ... - David Gerard 20:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Weird.

Gotta say, this is too strange for even the kookiest kook. - 211.30.181.143 02:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Strange, yes. Keep in mind that the clams used to have to cough up about half a million bucks to get to the part where elron sprung this on 'em. Back when they first decided to RMGROUP alt.religion.scientology, I'm sure they weren't expecting that everybody in the world would be able to find out all about this pile of hogwash.
I'm not giving you support, I was just trying to draw attention to the image; now you'll deleted this whole page????207.214.244.139 07:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

If Scientology wasn't such a pernicious cult, and the logic behind the stories (or would they be myths since it's ostensibly religious) wasn't so silly and nonsensical, I'd say they have one of the most interesting and coolest religious histories of any other religion. Still it's sad that people actually spend their life savings (I heard it's the $500k level this is taught at?) to hear stories they could go pick up at a book store for $10, and if it makes the story more fun to actually believe it's true, just use L.R. Hubbard's reasoning: I mean it's much easier and makes just as much sense to say that a good non-scientology affiliated $10 Space Opera genre book is an unconcious manifestation of true events than having to hear Hubbard's 3rd rate sci-fi style story for $500k and believing it's true. Maybe it's just easier to believe in something you invested half a million dollars in. --Brentt 06:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

What a delightful article

I am so glad this article was featured. I might have missed it otherwise. It shows just how impressive the unvarnished facts can be -- much more effective than any argument against them. And, even more important, it shows how the beliefs of any religion look to a non-believer. Compare the beliefs of Scientology, for example, to the story about the big boat with all the animals in it. --Anonymous

Yeah, they're both silly myths, but promulgators of the flood myth have pretty much left their vicious adolescent history behind them a couple of centuries ago. These days, you only occasionally hear about the Xtians offing someone in an exorrcism when they should have consulted a competent psychiatrist instead. --Anonymous
The easiest way to discourage someone interested in scientology from getting into it is to get a hold of their advanced teachings and showing them what kind of kookiness they are actually getting into. The webmaster of skepdic.com made an intersting observation about these sorts of things, not an exact quote but the idea was this: at first these kinds of cults, or religions, or organizations, or whatever you want to call them, get people intersted by presenting knowledge, which most people who have a secondary education, and paid attention, learned as basic psychology and philosophy, as the religion's own ideas. So people are at first fascinated by these "insights" and think there must be something to the religion. When they get to the higher levels it makes it easier to swallow since a trust as already been established in the mosr mundane lower levels.
They also use another intersting tactic: I took the so called "IQ" test (which it is not really)at the CoS headquarters in Hollywood once. (I stayed the night with a friend who happened to live down the street and we were bored in the morning.) The questions they ask are full of Scientology jargon that nobody who hasn't taken the courses could expect to know ("wax enthusiastic" is one of the most often used ones).Inevitably anyone not already initiated into Scientology is going to be left with a lot of "room for improvement." People who don't know it's a real IQ test will think they are stupid because they think it's a real IQ test, so they take the courses, thier supposed "IQ" score improves and then they think Scientology is making them smarter, when really the courses just made the familiar with the jargon. --Brentt 07:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Fun and tremendously informative, both as a discussion of Scientological views and as a historical slice of what ideas were cropping up in science fiction at the time Hubbard began writing about Scientology. One criticism though -- in the timeline, many of the date ranges are given from longest ago to most recent (which seems to me most logical for a timeline presented in chronological order), but almost half of them are given, and ordered, from most recent to longest ago. I'm reluctant to reorganize these myself as there may be a very good doctrinal reason for the disparity (was time travel involved in any incidents?) ... but I wonder if a more informed author could either make the list more consistent or else explain why the disparity exists? --207.216.237.40 05:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah!

Oh yeah, I fixed it! Now who's the man? I can't hear you, WHO IS THE MAN?! Thank you.

cool-RR.

Excellent article

This article is a shining example of NPOV and is about as good as an article could get. Much thanks to the writers. Paul 19:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is one of the funniest things I ever read. Enough so I was pretty confident it was a joke at first. I'm still uncertain that it really isn't a joke, but I imagine when any belief is relatively new it looks peculiar. I know the Druze's actual beliefs seemed very weird to early Muslims. Anyway I just hope you guys don't get sued:)--T. Anthony 10:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Great Article- I’d like more on the church’s financial structure.

I don’t know if it’s openly known but it would be great to have an article about how the money flows in the church of scientology. To answer questions along this line:

  1. Is there a central board of directors? If so who are they and what exactly do they do.
  2. I there a single individual on top or a family? Who?
  3. From what I understand the church has assets and investments worth in billions of dollars. Where or how is the money invested?
  4. With that kind of money there must be major financial planning. Who is in charge and how is it distributed thought out the organization?
  5. Does the money stay at the colleted church or is it centralized at a main location?
  6. Do they have collection goals? What things require members to pay and how much do they cost?
  7. As I understand there is a larger number of members on the payroll, who, why, and how much?

I am guessing with the amount of money they deal with it should not be to difficult to find out investments, who the people involved at the upper level are. Basically who is on top of scientology, a group of individuals? A family? A single person? Who are they and a little bit about them.

I'm assuming you've had a look at the articles on Scientology, Church of Scientology, Scientology controversy, and some of the others in Wikipedia's Scientology category. Those articles have some information about the church's finances and powerful figures such as David Miscavige. If you feel they're lacking in the information you're looking for it might be a good idea to bring it up on the talk pages of those particular articles, as this one concerns the role of space opera and isn't really the place for detail on some of the things you mention. Having said that, the people who work on our Scientology articles are bound to come across your comment here. — Trilobite 23:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
That's actually a fantastic idea for an article. Hmm ... - David Gerard 01:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The Helatrobus Implants - misplaced comment?

This sentence is in the Scientology and science fiction section:

"Many science-fictional references can be found in Hubbard's Scientology-related works. Scientologists could find themselves living in "robot bodies" in past lives, being killed by "zap guns", living aboard spaceships or flying "space wagons" capable of travelling "a trillion light years per day". ("The Helatrobus Implants") "

What is the parenthetical reference at the end supposed to mean? It seems like it might be an orphan from some past edit, as it doesn't seem to connect at all to either the sentence before or after, nor does it look like a citation... . Blurble 15:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

It's a reference to the lecture in which those things are described by Hubbard. -- ChrisO 19:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

removing an uncited introduction sentence here for citing and discussion

The sentence: "It forms a major element of the beliefs of Scientology." isn't cited. According to WP:CITE#When_there_is_a_factual_dispute I have removed the factually disputed information to this discussion page for discussion and citing. According to the article: "space opera was the term used by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard to describe extraterrestrial civilizations and alien interventions." Which is fine, but to state that it forms a major element of the beliefs of scientology is False. I am disputing that second statement which appears as the first sentence of this subsection. By cutting it from the article here I am stating there is no published source of information which says: "Space opera is a major element of the beliefs of Scientology." Terryeo 20:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Essentially the same sentence a second time, this time with a single secondary source which purports to verify the "major element" portion. If it IS a major element then it should be very easy to verifiy that it is a major element. On the other hand, if it is not a major element then it will not be easy to verifiy. I know it is not. Here is the sentence and the single, secondary and not primary source: "It forms a major element of the beliefs of Scientology [3]. " nonsense, it is not a major element. Find a primary source, support it with 3 secondary sources and you won't have arguement from me. Terryeo 20:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
This is one of those things a discussion page is for, gang. Yes, one secondary source might say, "central element" or "major element" or "core element" of Scientology beleifs. But it is appropriate to discuss the situation per WP:NOR#How_to_deal_with_Wikipedia_entries_about_theories because "major element" is a Theory. Scientology has major elements of its beliefs but that space opera is one of them is disputable. Scientology does not state it as a major element. Various Doctors of Divinity have published opinions about Scientology. None of them cite space opera as being a central tenent or a major element. Because a single secondary source publishes an opinion does not make it true, but it makes the idea citable. Whether the idea "major element" is actual, valid or not is up to us editors to discuss and arrive at a concensus about, then present. Can we talk about it? Terryeo 15:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
No one wants to waste their time discussing absurdities -- except of course people who stand to gain if they can sneak their absurdities in. "Find a primary source, support it with 3 secondary sources and you won't have arguement from me." And the corrolary, presumably, is that you will keep arguing until a "primary source" (in the sense which you understand that term to mean, which is unlikely to match what it actually means) and three "secondary sources" (same caveats apply) all confirm it for you? How interesting. Tell me, where did those figures of one primary sources and three secondary sources come from? Do you think that's appropriate behavior, to make your cooperation with others conditional upon their meeting a standard of verification and citation that I doubt any of your own edits have ever met? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
At least you are communicating about it, that's something. My 1 primary and 3 secondary sources are a false standard, the statement is full of hot air and has little value. On the other hand, one secondary source does not a standard make, either. So, can we resort to communication? The statement in question, and it is the only one, is: "Space opera forms a major element of the beliefs of Scientology". Some very qualified people have published public opinions about Scientology. I haven't read them all, but none of the ones I have read yet make the above statement. Here is an at least neutral and conceivably considered hostile one. [4] While here is a Scn page with many such scholarly opinions: [5]. Myself, I Frank K Flinn (Ph.D)'s opinion. Warning! PFD format because his list of educational achievements is worthy and because I've seen him declare himself to be a practicing Catholic (not scientologist). In any event, your qualified professional doesn't support that statement this discussion is about. As you know, I have told you what I understand, Scientology doesn't consider space opera to be a belief. Terryeo 19:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
"As you know, I have told you what I understand, Scientology doesn't consider space opera to be a belief." There are two ways to interpret that statement. One of them is in clear contradiction to the definition of "space opera" in the Official Scientology and Dianetics Glossary[6]. The other is to separate "belief" from "knowledge", as you indicated that you would like to do at Talk:Clear (Scientology); unfortunately what you indicated at that page is that you want your own subjective experience to be what distinguishes one from the other. It's like the old joke about "conjugation of adjectives": "I am ebullient; you are tipsy; he is blotto." That's what you're proposing, pretty much. "Other religions have beliefs; my religion has knowledge." Wikipedia cannot privilege your religion's beliefs above those of other religions; even if Scientology does not want to consider "space opera" as they define it as a "belief", that is exactly what it is. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
What we want for the article is verified information that "Space Opera is a central Scientology belief," right? And there is a single internet site that says so, right? My personal opinions and everyones are only as useful as they lead to citable information. That information to be contained in an article. This link [7] leads to a dozen experts whom spell out "central scientology beliefs". None of them mention "space opera" as a central belief, indeed, hardly mention it at all. I recognize your point, Feldspar, that I frequently attempt to pry blief and knowledge apart. That is true. But whatever I try to do, our standard for publication is "verifiability" and a single internet source balanced against a dozen expert sources makes a person question how central space opera is to scientology. Terryeo 20:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, the sentence in question is "[Space opera] forms a major element of the beliefs of Scientology", not "Space Opera is a central Scientology belief". Even if your "dozen expert sources" (all published on the Scientology site http://www.humanrights-germany.org/) were the final word on everything Scientology and overruled all "internet sources" and if it was logically safe to conclude that nothing not specifically named as a central belief by these expert sources could be a central belief (let me remind you, I am not saying that any of these premises are true, only if) -- it still would not justify your deletion, because the sentence you're repeatedly deleting isn't the sentence you claim has been disproven. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Fortunately, Feldspar, it is not you whom must be satisfied for my deletions to happen, it is instead the software as manifested by Wikipedia and Wikipedia's intent. I venture there is no source that can be cited to verify "Space opera forms a major element of the beliefs of Scientology" yet the sentence was included in the article. WP:V states what any editor should do with any information in any article which is uncited and which they know to be untrue. I do so. Terryeo 01:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Fortunately, there are other editors around to correct your misapplications of policy and misrepresentations of fact. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I see what you mean Feldspar. You are saying it is fortunate that other POV editors feel as you do, editors whom likewise cannot justify their edits by WP:V but "just feel its right" and edit based on their feelings rather than on how Wikipedia say we should edit. Yeah, I understand what you mean all right. Terryeo 16:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, all this space opera is the underpinning for why Scientologists use E-Meters...and I hope you're not arguing that e-meters aren't central to Scientology. Simple logic dictates that this makes space opera a major element of Scientology. Answer this: would you ever have to use one of those E-meters without this space opera excitement being around?161.225.129.111 21:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps Terryeo has not made it to OT III yet, and is unaware of his own religon's core beliefs. Start saving your pennies!
Terryeo and all other practicing low-level Scientologists should be barred from making edits which remove any critical commentary on Scientology. Given that it is considered taboo within the organisation for a member to view critical information, they are, to be blunt, neither informed enough to comment or capable of commenting on any issues presented. Only a higher-'level' Scientologist is given enough information to argue any of this, and only a higher-'level' Scientologist is given permission to view any of the criticisms presented. 66.167.51.8 08:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hoi polloi

It's the obvious source of Hubbard's usage, which may not be obvious to many people, so please put the link back. AnonMoos 20:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If it's so obvious, then the link isn't necessary. Hubbard turned hundreds of words and phrases into his own, and we don't link to generic articles for Hubbardized words like "Clear" and "Hat". If you want to start a "Hoipolloi (Scientology)" article and link to that, that would be appropriate. wikipediatrix 20:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Why did you misinterpret what I wrote above? Nevertheless, if "Clear" and "hat" were less-commonly used words whose traditional meanings were not necessarily understood by everybody, then there would indeed be links to those articles from the Scientology articles. AnonMoos 20:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess it depends on your level of erudition. "Hoi Polloi" is a perfectly common term to me and it would never occur to me that it needed defining or clarifying. Nevertheless, the Hoi Polloi in Hoi polloi is not the same Hoipolloi that is being referenced in the article, so unless you want to create a disambiguation page, the link only creates confusion. wikipediatrix 22:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be some mention of the connection? If Hubbard is stipulating that Hoipolloi was in fact the name of a real pre-historic group, then the obvious derivation undermines his credibility and the claim that the stories are real history. If that wasn't their name and Hubbard is just using the term to identify them as a group of common folk, then there should at least some mention of the connotation for the less literate among us. 66.122.73.102 03:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The "Assists" lecture

Terryeo removed the reference to the "Assists" lecture. This lecture is widely available and the Church of Scientology even drug Erlich into court and admitted that the lecture exists. I have a copy of the lecture, as do many other people. There are even many places on the Internet where you can download portions (including the entirety) of these lectures. One such location that provides the portions of the Assists lecture where L. Ron Hubbard says, "The man on the Cross. There was no Christ. But the man on the cross is shown as Everyman." and "The entirety of Roman Catholicism - the devil, all of this sort of thing - that is all part of R6." is at [[8]] Just because the Church of Scientology was unable to keep the information confidential, doesn't mean it can't be reported on here. Vivaldi 08:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not "widely available", not only can you not purchase it, but no one has ever purchased it. It has never been published to the pubic. "Widely Available" is a misinformed statement on your part.Terryeo 17:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually Terryeo, the excerpts are published. I provided a link to just one of hundreds of such similar sites that currently are publishing excerpts from the Assists lecture. Did you bother reading them, or listening to Hubbard's own voice speaking the words? e.g. "The man on the Cross. There was no Christ" -- L. Ron Hubbard Just because the Church of Scientology intended for these lectures to remain confidential, does not imply that Wikipedia or any other person or organization is required to help the Co$ keep the lectures confidential. There exists lots of proof the lecture exists and it will continue to be cited in this article. Vivaldi 00:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is another link currently being published on the web page of a current member of the Church of Scientology that includes verification of the Assists lecture's existence and authenticity of some of the quotes: [[9]] Vivaldi 00:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I added it back as well. It has been reported on in many independent, verifiable sources. It is widely available. It is notable and pertanant here. It should not be censored because it may embarrass some adherants. Jonathunder 13:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
"embarrass some adherants" has nothing to do with the issue by which I am removing it. WP:V is the pertinent policy. It has not been reported in many independent, verifiable sources. It was stolen and duplicated and is legally contested. Terryeo 17:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
It is legally contested? Contested by whom and on what grounds? Are you asserting that the copies of the lecture that do exist are in fact copies of the copyrighted Assist lecture that Hubbard gave? Vivaldi 00:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed that and I removed that again. This exact reference has been discussed and hammered out before. This is not a censor on my part, nor a refusal to recognize the situation, nor a refusal to recognize the content which is cited, the Class VIII lecture. None of those elements are the issue, though the issue could be raised of their legality. The issue is simply, "Is that a published verification?" The answer is, no, it is not a published verification. It is very far from "unimpeachable source" (WP:V). It is actually stolen information and the copy of it available on the internet might be accurate or might be 10% dubbed, parts removed and so on. Or might be 90# edited, dubbed, etc. There is no way to know because it has never been (and probably won't be) published to the public. Someone stole it. Someone says they present it to you on the internet, obviously in violation of copyrights. Whether it is legal or not, it has not been published to the public. This particular cite has been discussed a lot at [10] where ChrisO attempted to "sneak" it through by modifying WP:CITE, staving off discussion but I got included and revealed what sort of document it was. It shouldn't be cited. Its not censored, it is just good sense and follows WP:VTerryeo 17:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
You are, of course, wrong. First, the fact that the document has not been published by the CoS doesn't mean that it hasn't been published at all. Its publication is merely unauthorised, which is a different thing. Second, publishing extracts of unpublished material is permitted under the fair use doctrine, as litigation involving the CoS has already found (see http://www.publaw.com/fairuse.html under "Church of Scientology"). Third, you're not a lawyer and you're not acting on behalf of the CoS, so stop acting as if you were. You have absolutely no legal standing. Fourth, you've plainly violated the 3 revert rule, so I've requested that you be blocked. -- ChrisO 18:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Heh, I appreciate that you take the responsibility of stating that you requested another administrator to block me because of 3RR. And I appriciate that the administrator who did block me because of my 3RR violiation took responsibility and told me so. Moving on to your accusation that I am not a lawyer and your evaluation that I am acting like one, I would say both issues are not pertinent to the issue. Moving on to your statement that I have no legal standing, of course I know that to be true in the context you state it in. :) Getting back to the main point, which is the citing of the assists lecture, it seems obvious to me but apparently not obvious to a couple of other editors. In the USA, the document is copyrighted and not published. How can a reader know it is accurate? It is obviously, as you say, unauthorized and therefore a lesser quality of verification than appropriate to Wikipedia. I point you again to WP:V and to earlier discussions we have had which might satisfy WP:CITE but would not satisfy the parent policy, WP:V. The internet gives us the opportunity to link to sites in other countries. Such is the case with the Xenu site. In that country, the copyright laws are not the same as where Wikipedia's servers are, which is in Florida. Wikipedia's servers in Florida fall within USA law and copyrights. That document is contentested. If you use it as a central document for an article, you might have some arguement. But used in Space Opera, it is a minor point in a major article. History of Man, one of the books you cite, has been published since the 1950s. To argue about such a citation as Assits which makes a tiny contribution to an article, places the citation as worthy of being removed. It is not central to the article. It is contested. Terryeo 20:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Your legal opinions are not needed or wanted by Wikipedia. If the Church of Scientology wants to sue Wikipedia, then they need to go ahead and file a lawsuit and quit having shills post legal threats here. Vivaldi 00:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Though I appriciate that your time is often used in dealing with "shills," the term is, non-the-less, degrading and more of a personal put-off than an invitation toward fruitful communication. What legal threat did you see, I posted no legal threat. Terryeo 20:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Another point: you seem to be trying to police the copyright of external websites. We have absolutely no standing to do this for any website other than Wikipedia. There's simply no way that we can determine whether an external website is violating copyright or not, unless it's something very obvious like a warez site. It's your personal contention that xenu.net is breaking copyright law. Frankly, your personal view is completely irrelevant - that's an issue for the CoS' lawyers and xenu.net's owner, not Wikipedia or you. -- ChrisO 00:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate that you take the effort and attempt to evaluate my edits. Perhaps you can hold a class somewhere about that point of view :) As I have stated before, you are wrong to make minor points with contested, unpublished documents. You justify your actions by modifying WP:CITE. You justify your actions by saying such publications are "unauthorized publications". But those statements do not modify WP:V which spells out that a contested verification such as the "Assists" lecture should not be cited. Besides, you don't know and no one except someone with an origianl from the CoS and the duplicate can know if the Xenu site is publishing the real thing or not.Terryeo 20:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually we do know that its the real thing because Helena Kobrin, church of Scientology attorney, verified the authenticity of the sound clips when she wrote letters to many different people and ISPs stating that the sound clips from the Assists lecture were copyrighted excerpts. See [[11]] for just one example of such a letter. Vivaldi 05:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Vivaldi 00:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


"Unimpeachable!!!"
"Uhm, I do not think that word means what you think it means..."
With apologies to the Princess Bride. Ronabop 10:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I have often attempted to state how Space Opera, as exciting as it is to many people, forms a really small element of Scientology Doctrine. I understand perfectly that no one is going to take my word for it, but insist that due to researches of their own, will insist it be otherwise presented. Here is a link to a more professional presentation of what part Space Opera plays in Scientology Doctrine. [12] Terryeo 20:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
And what makes this "more professional"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Space opera a small element?
«This Grade, OT III, is a long and very valuable Grade. It determines whether or not the Solo auditor will eventually be a real OT.» L. Ron Hubbard, HCO BULLETIN OF 26 AUGUST AD 19R REVISED 16 AUGUST 1983, "OT III CASE SUPERVISION"
«OT III is a vital Grade. One fronts up to it and does it. When he is really done, the rewards of OT III exceed his wildest dreams.» L. Ron Hubbard, HCO BULLETIN OF 26 AUGUST AD 19R REVISED 16 AUGUST 1983, "OT III CASE SUPERVISION"
Scientology advertisement of OT3: [13] [14]. OT3 is all available for reading there, from court files. Raymond Hill 02:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Yep, a small element. Space Opera is a small element of Scientology. Before you even approached Space Opera as being real, you would have to have at least some possible thought, you would have to consider it at least possible that you had existed beyond the current body. How important to you, may I ask, is that ? Is that a "small element?" Or is that a BIG DEAL? heh ! Space Opera plays a small element in Scientology. Terryeo 09:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
If space opera plays such a minor role, I'd have to ask you two questions . . .
1) Why do you believe eMeters are helpful therapudic devices (I do realize that you are a low level Scientologist, without access to OT teachings, so the question is an honest one). This space opera excitement that you haven't paid to learn about yet explains that you're removing those nasty thetans when you use eMeters, so without space opera, you wouldn't even have eMeters!
2) If space opera plays such a minor role, why does it cost so very, very much to get to the point where you'll finally learn about it? Of course, the unstated assumption (now stated) is that the more you pay Scientology coffers to advance through their teachings, the more important the materials are to the core beliefs of the church.
Two adverts and one summary... where is it "all available", again, because I'm not seeing it in the links you provided? Ronabop 09:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
There might be too much focus on Xenu and the assists lecture. (Not that I think it should be removed.) After all, there plenty of other published sources predating OT-III that show that space opera is an important part of Scientology doctrine. [15] [16] [17] (Check these against older versions since some Golden Age of Knowledge ones have apparently been edited.) (Sorry, forgot to sign, AndroidCat 19:59, March 20, 2006 UTC)
Whomever posted this opinion should have signed it. Terryeo 09:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Scientology's history of the universe

Someone obviously did a great deal of original research to put this section together. They deserve a lot of credit for their efforts. I hope they will provide the citations so the reader can verify these statements. I am familiar with a couple of the terms, such as Marcab Conferation and Fifth Invader Force, but most of these incidents are a complete mystery to me. Where did they come from? dcottle561 17:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no original research here: the sources are already given appropriately in the article. For example, if you look carefully and slowly at the article again, you will see that the Marcab info is from Hubbard's Auditing Comm Cycles, E-Meter Actions, Errors in Auditing, Create and Confront, A History of Man, and Russell Miller's Bare-Faced Messiah. Further references are made available at the bottom of the page, in a section cleverly titled "References". wikipediatrix 19:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course, Bare-Faced Messiah, by Russell Miller ! Was there some secret which Hubbard whispered to him about some Marcab Federation back in the 50's sometime or another? Some little tidbit which Hubbard did not publish except through word-of-mouth to Miller? Terryeo 10:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, simply making snide and unsupported insinuations about Miller's work (insinuations which you would realize were false if you actually read the book, or if you even did a halfway careful reading of the article) is not helpful to the process of editing the article. In fact, it's pretty disruptive, just like your constant nonsensical insistence that Scientology is not a belief system and your sneering attacks on other editors. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You can't be serious.

Is this for real? It's a bunch of crock to me.

Although I thought that to start with, it appears that it's for real - it cites relevant sources, and it appears that it actually is part of Scientology doctrine. It may look like sci-fi, but to be fair, L. Ron Hubbard also believed that some sci-fi comes from subconscious racial memories, so it makes more sense than it appears. Also, be wary of condemning a religion just because some of its beliefs are implausible when taken literally; not all Christians, for instance, believe in the literal truth of Adam and Eve. I'm not a Scientologist and don't know any more; you might want to consult Terryeo for more information. Walton monarchist89 10:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo is perhaps not the best source to turn to for information about Scientology beliefs, because he has claimed repeatedly that Scientology does not have beliefs, among other reasons. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
You have, by implication, mis-stated what I have said many times. Scientology (the philosophy) does not present beliefs. The Church of Scientology does present beliefs. Terryeo 10:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
From what I'd read Dianetics is the philosophy with Scientology being the religion. In least I seem to recall John W. Campbell and A. E. Van Vogt were interested in Dianetics, but were not interested in Scientology later on as "it was a religion."--T. Anthony 15:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
And "Scientology is not a belief system",[18] yada yada yada, right. Why do you persist in the same canards, Terryeo? You could possibly make an argument that Scientology is only a "philosophy" and not a belief system if it actually did not consist in any part of beliefs and only consisted of value judgements. But since that has absolutely no connection with the truth, why do you persist in trying to discuss it? Scientology is bursting at the seams with beliefs -- the belief that the "thetan" has lived many past lives, that enough auditing clears the "engrams" from the "reactive mind" and the right course of study after that allows the thetan to "exteriorize with full perceptics" -- I mean, honestly. It's not just bizarre that you would ask us to believe that Scientology is not a belief system, it's insulting. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I state the actual situation because it is the actual situation. You state certain things are beliefs. I state that you are misinformed. You state that your case is strong. I state that if you read Hubbard's statements instead of Xenu.net and newsgroups, you might understand what I am saying is real. You state that you are insulted. I state that I am presenting the actual situation. I do understand it is just unbelievable to you, and I would expect anyone to feel as you do. That is, anyone who studies Xenu.net / Clambake.org, and takes the word of people who have declared themselves to be the enemy of the source of the information you refuse. Anyone who does as you do is pretty much not going to understand the actual situation because the situation which Xenu.net and self-declared enemies make is not the actual situation they say it is. I am stating the actual situation. The philosophy, Scientology, does not present beliefs. To the contrary, Hubbard suggested reading his words with a skeptical eye, with one's own judgement intact. It is not my responsibility to convince you. I can, however, reply to your statements. Terryeo 04:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Clap-trap. It has nothing to do with Operation Clambake or "alt.net.scientology" or the words of any critics. It has to do with the fact that Scientology asserts the human mind to be "made up of mental image pictures which have mass and energy". [19] That is a belief. Scientology asserts that "man is an immortal spiritual being whose experience extends well beyond a single lifetime and whose capabilities are unlimited".[20] That is a belief. Your bizarre claim that "The philosophy, Scientology, does not present beliefs" is so trivially disproven that one can think of no reason why a person would persist in such a claim except for the purpose of time-wasting disruption. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm a relative newcomer to this field, and was only trying to be helpful to whoever asked the question at the top of this section (who, by the way, should have signed it). I admit that I don't know much about Scientology, and can't really claim to know how accurate or otherwise this article is. I was only explaining, to whoever asked the question, that it seems to be for real, as it cites all relevant sources. I do know that Hubbard did claim that some space opera/sci-fi comes from our subconscious racial memories, and that he did some experiments into trying to discover these subconscios memories. Alternatively, a cynic might claim that it came from Hubbard's overactive imagination (he was a sci-fi writer himself, after all; see Battlefield Earth). (I'm not saying this to offend any Scientologists, just stating that it's what many people would argue). Walton monarchist89 08:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I have gone around with Feldspar, ChrisO and others on this subject many times. Space opera plays an insignificant role in Scientology. The article is based on how important that role is. While I tell you my opinion and the next Scientologist tells you his opinion, there are learned scholars who have stated their professional opinions here. Yet none of those opinions are worthy of the notice of the editors who create and maintain this article. Instead (because it makes good reading?) those editors (including Feldspar) refuse to recognize and assimilate the actual role which space opera has in Scientology. It is a minor role. Terryeo 04:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
If space opera plays such a minor role, I'd have to ask you two questions . . .
1) why do you believe eMeters are helpful therapudic devices. This space opera excitement explains that you're removing those nasty thetans, so without space opera, you wouldn't even have eMeters. heh.
2) If space opera plays such a minor role, why does it cost so very, very much to get to the point where you'll finally learn about it? Of course, the unstated assumption (now stated) is that the more you pay Scientology coffers to advance through their teachings, the more important the materials are to the core beliefs of the church.
Um, most of those "opinions" on that Scientology-run page are obvious shills for Scientology. For example, Harri Heino's "book" is published by Scientology's Freedom Publications. Wow, what an amazing coincidence. For every "learned scholar" who defends Scientology, I can find you a hundred who don't. wikipediatrix 13:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Fasinating. Why don't you email those learned scholars, find out if they are real or not, their degree of education, wether they hold the positions their titles imply, whether they are asked to testify before courts and the U.N. on religion or not, etc ? That is the basis on which I refer to those people as "scholars". Their opinions were asked for by the Church and they gave their opinions. In some cases their opinions additionally appear on their personal websites. Why do you make little of well published and make large of poorly published? Terryeo 04:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Translation: "The official Party line of Scientology is that space opera is not an important part of their beliefs, and obviously the official Party line outweighs any evidence to the contrary no matter how overwhelming." -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Translation. Hubbard wrote something like 40 million words (anyway, a lot). The total amount of that work that has something to do with "space opera" is small, in fact, almost all of it is cited in this article. Terryeo 04:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I have edited this article a number of times. I changed one or two words. The article mis-presents the importance of space opera in Scientology in a very big way. Yet, the more I work at presenting the actual situation, the more inflammed editors become. Its not that wouldn't like Wikipedia to present good information, I would strongly prefer Wikipedia to present good information. The problem is that enough editors insist on presenting bad information that my discussions and edits don't make enough difference. So I fall back to insisting that newsgroups and blogs and personal opinion not be used as secondary sources in these articles. It isn't much toward good information, but it is something. While I suspect the articles probably have some vested, but hidden interest prompting some editors to push a POV or a website, Wikipedia's editing policy allows it. Its the best I can do. Terryeo 11:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with you much on Scientology. I think Hubbard was just a hack author and if you just go by what is officially said the Church of Scientology is paranoid or delusional or both. However I'm not trying to start a fight with you. The truth is I think you're kind of right on this. This article really should do more to mention that many Scientologists dispute that "space opera incidents play an important part in beliefs of Scientology" and that the link for the statement it does is essentially an anti-Scientology site. It would be like using Avro Manhattan to say that secret conspiracies are a critical part of Catholicism and not allowing any rebuttal. Granted I think the indisputable facts of Scientology are negative enough, but in many respects this article is so one-sided and loopy it being a featured article should be vaguely embarrassing. As I'm not a Scientologist in anyway, shape, or form perhaps I can make the appropriate edit here.--T. Anthony 14:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
How is it one-sided? The article is one of best-sourced of the Scientology articles, its references come directly from official Scientology publications, not haters and critics. Any alleged Scientologist who denies the importance of "Space Opera" simply doesn't know what they are talking about, just as there are many Christians today who would fail a Bible quiz if given one. Don't take my word for it, look it up: "Space Opera" is included in the official glossary of Scientology terminology: "Space opera: of or relating to time periods on the whole track millions of years ago which concerned activities in this and other galaxies. Space opera has space travel, spaceships, spacemen, intergalactic travel, wars, conflicts, other beings, civilizations and societies, and other planets and galaxies. It is not fiction and concerns actual incidents and things that occurred on the track." [21] We already know (from released court documents that the CoS tried to cover up) that Xenu, which is part of Hubbard's Space Opera mythos, is a key part of Scientology after reaching the OTIII level, and we also know that Scientologists are forbidden from acknowledging its existence to outsiders. wikipediatrix 18:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The nature of Scientology as an esoteric religion means what you're saying might be true. However the statements I added simply say that in public Scientologists dispute how important Space Opera is to their religion. And not just bumpkin uneducated Scientologists, the higher ups too. I think that deserves to be mentioned. If you want to add that they have to deny it in public that's fine by me. Trust me I don't care for this religion at all, but I think it's weird enough without bashing over the head on it. As for it being well-sourced I know most of the sources as I've read this article a few times for humor. (It's one of the most hilarious things on the web, funnier than almost anything in BJAODN) The sources are mostly educated and rational people who studied this, but this means they're bound to be biased. Almost any educated and rational person would tend to be aghast by the stuff they admit. It seems like a bit more response from the adherents of this group deserved mention. At least a brief mention early on that Scientology is a mystery/esoteric religion so this may not be known or accepted by most members. (Trust me being fair to Scientology is not something I relish, but I'd hate to invite reciprocal religious wars)--T. Anthony 04:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
You could try Category:Scientologist Wikipedians. Unfortunately it's just got two people and User talk:Buttered Bread indicates he might be dead. The other is User:Coil who states s/he is also a Mormon. There's little evidence that person is active. In David Miscavige's Nightline interview he stated that space-opera is not important to their religion. However he also stated some pretty oddball things in his own right so judge his statement as you will.--T. Anthony 14:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Is this really the pinnacle of scientological thought? I find it hard to believe. Scientology is clearly esoteric in that it does not teach the whole truth to intiates but slowly tells them how things 'really are'. Is there no chance that there is not in fact a higher level of scientological truth where they say, all this space opera was bull, we are now going to tell you the real origin of the enslavement of the theta? Alternatively, is there a metaphorical analysis traditon, which has members understand the DC10 shaped space ships as the arrival of a system, such as the millitary-industrial complex, and its influence upon the mind or whatever. --Timtak 11:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
What you're suggesting is speculation and is, therefore, of no use in editing a Wikipedia article. wikipediatrix 13:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Timtak. To answer your first question as you asked it -- sure, there is a chance that there is a level of Scientology teachings beyond those that have been publicly revealed which contradict the known teachings of Hubbard that this was all quite literal truth about the past of the universe. It seems rather unlikely, however; there have been many very high-level departures from the Church of Scientology -- Pat Broeker, John McMaster, David Mayo, Jesse Prince, Robert Vaughn Young, to name just the first handful that come to mind -- and no matter how much they revealed of the doctrines of the CoS, none of them mentioned a level such as the one you postulate.
As for a "metaphorical analysis tradition" -- there have been, I believe, attempts to imply that the space opera doctrines are to Scientology what the Old Testament is to Judaism and Christianity. There is definitely a tradition of analyzing the Old Testament as a metaphor rather than as literal truth, so what's to stand in the way of a similar metaphorical analysis tradition for Scientology? Answer: Anyone who did would be "squirreling". Hubbard didn't say it was metaphorical; he said it was literal truth. It might exist in the Free Zone but not in mainstream Scientology.
Of course, as Wikipediatrix points out, this is our own speculation here, and can't really be article material without sourced material for such a sub-topic. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your thorough answer. I guess this can all be deleted now? *Perhaps* it might be worth a mention that there is no tradition of space opera exegesis nor any evidence for the existance of a higher esoteric level.
Why would we delete this discussion? (I'm guessing that's what your "this" refers to, but I'm not sure...) -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't delete the discussion. It is a part of the page record, and clears up a major query that users may have about this article, i.e. its accuracy. If you delete this discussion, more people are bound to add queries along the lines of "is this a joke"? We have established that it is not (i.e that some Scientologists do actually believe this), and I for one am not fond of answering the same question numerous times. Yes, there's a lot of bickering here between certain users, but that doesn't stop the discussion from being both valid and valuable. Walton monarchist89 10:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The DC-8 thing

The image caption notes that "Hubbard said that Xenu's victims were transported in interstellar space planes which looked exactly like Douglas DC-8s." But this fact isn't mentioned at all in the body of the article. I'd like to see a citation for the DC-8 thing. Patiwat 09:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It's in Xenu. I'll see if I can make this clearer. -- ChrisO 10:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is confused.

Most of the titillating quotes about alien civilizations come from transcripts of Hubbard's lectures. These lectures were not always necessarily Scientology-related, and were often simply about whatever fanciful stuff popped into his head. Is it wacky and kooky? Of course. And if you listen to the recordings, the audience is laughing good-naturedly about it and so is Hubbard. Was it ever intended, then or now, to be absolute Scientology doctrine he was spouting? Absolutely not, and there's no proof otherwise. Attacking Scientology today by way of holding it literally accountable for goofy jokes, stories and allegories told in 1950's/1960's Hubbard lectures is not only wrong, it's a very desperate kind of wrongness. This article's entire premise is based on the false assumption that "if Hubbard joked about it in a lecture in 1956, then it's serious core Scientology doctrine". Highfructosecornsyrup 16:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I will simply copy over my comments from Wikipedia:Featured article review/Space opera in Scientology doctrine

Comment - The article is NOT neutral. It gives inordinate emphasis to casual remarks by Hubbard as being part of Scientology doctrine. Arslycus is a good example; that was a casual remark in the PDC lecture made to illustrate a point (I actually listened to that very lecture not long ago while on a long drive). It is not a part of Scientology. Hubbard was always careful, IMO, to distinquish between his opinion or his self-admitted tendency to act the raconteur and what he considered to be the technology of Scientology. Additionally; he specifically excluded space opera (as a general topic) from Scientology; lumping it in, along with lots of other "unprovables", to what he termed "para-Scientology"; meaning that most Scientologists have VERY little intersection with space opera and it is by no means a core belief (the core belief being that you are an immortal spiritual being inhabiting a body and using a mind and that you can improve your state of being, by-and-large, using very concrete techniques that have nothing to do with space opera). The only actual alleged example of space opera that I know of that has any relevance to Scientology is the claim by ex-Scientologists that OT 3 includes the Xenu incident. But if that were the entirety of the article, I guess it would not be as "interesting" (although it might be a lot more accurate). Interestingly, I just looked again at the article and see that critics like to pooh-pooh Scientologist's protestations that LRH's far-out stories, anecdotes, and jokes are not a part of mainstream Scientology. So I guess we are "damned if we do and damned if we don't". Anyway, the article needs a lot of work to bring it to a neutral state. --Justanother 16:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

--Justanother 17:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is confused, pt.2

The article states: "The following descriptions of space opera incidents are seen as nonfiction in the beliefs of Scientology", and then justifies this with a link to http://www.scientology.org/gloss.htm#SPACEOPERA, which does say that there is such a thing as space opera and that it "It is not fiction", but what it doesn't say is specifically that it applies to the jokes and stories told in Hubbard's lectures, which are gleefully recounted in the article and presented as "Scientology doctrine". It's not the same thing. The Scientology glossary link used as a reference is non-specific, so it cannot be used to back up this article's highly specific and outrageously misleading claims. Highfructosecornsyrup 16:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that Hubbard told "jokes". What I know is a policy "Joking and degrading" which advises against making fun of things. So, can you tell a few Hubbard jokes? --Tilman 18:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Only Hubbard is allowed to "J&D". --Justanother 18:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The idea that Scientology and/or Hubbard are against humor is ridiculous. "Making fun of things", i.e. ridicule/satire, is a whole 'nother thing and not relevant here. Hubbard frequently used humor and levity to make a point in his lectures. Highfructosecornsyrup 19:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Scientologists are ill-advised to joke about Scientology, esp. staff members are not to joke about their posts or fellow staff members. Jokes about other subjects are, of course, common. The reference is HCOB 5 February 1977 "C/S Series 100 Jokers and Degraders"

A recent investigation, however, into the backgrounds and case condition of small handful of people who were joking about their posts and those around them showed a somewhat more sinister scene.

In some cultural areas, wit and humor are looked upon as a healthy release. However, in the case of orgs, this was not found to be the case. Intentional destruction of the org or fellow staff members was the direct purpose.

My point is that this policy did not apply to Hubbard especially as it was written in 1977, after most of his taped lectures that might contain the subject material. The point Tilman makes is one that deserves an answer so there it is. While the policy might seem harsh, I can also see the benefit of not making sarcastic remarks about your job or fellow workers and such restraint is now the norm in the workplace. --Justanother 19:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It's all just a diversion anyway. Isaac Hayes worked on the most mean-spirited satirical "make fun of everything" TV show on Earth for almost a decade, and Nancy Cartwright still works for the second most "make fun of everything" show, so obviously Tilman's argument is a non-argument. And don't forget John Travolta's current role in another major "make fun of everything" production, John Waters' Hairspray on Broadway. Highfructosecornsyrup 19:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know any "Hubbard jokes" anyway though I do know a few Scientologist jokes, e.g. "How many Scientologists does it take to screw in a lightbulb". --Justanother 19:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

title change

Given that there is no evidence, either in the article or anywhere else, that most of the specific incidents and subjects in this article are "Scientology doctrine" in any sense of the word, this article is based on an extremely faulty and POV-driven premise. Therefore, it seems clear that we must either:

  1. Change the name of this article to Space opera and L. Ron Hubbard.
  2. Remove almost all of this article's information or move it elsewhere, reducing this article to basically the Xenu information. This, however, would render it redundant with the Xenu article unless it could be expanded, so I think option #1 makes the most sense.

Highfructosecornsyrup 19:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree and have no real preference as to which. I think you will have better luck selling the former. --Justanother 19:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't see any reason to change it. Petty word-games trying to pretend that the Operating Thetan levels somehow do not count as "doctrine" are just that, petty word-games and not valid reasons. Keep it under its current fully accurate title, thanks. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
If it is so petty then perhaps you will have no objection to the change? --Justanother 21:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course I have objections to it, because it makes no sense and is a change for the worse. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem with the change proposed is that it would be too easy to confuse it with just L. Ron Hubbard as a writer. A less drastic change might be Space opera and Scientology doctrine. That way these things can be discussed in relation to Scientology while avoiding any claim they are part of Scientology. As a mystery religion, of a kind, they aren't in a great position to rebut any bizarre claims. Even if they do it can be stated they are just "hiding the truth" because the faith requires it. The same could also be said of the Druze, but I think we'd treat them with greater respect. Granted I feel the Druze deserve far greater respect, but I think Wikipedia is not really supposed to take sides in that way. I should also say I'm personally quite opposed to Scientology. I'm hesitant to reiterate how harmful I think it is as I don't want them coming at me, but I think in a spirit of fairness we need to acknowledge that they reject the idea this is "in their doctrine." Otherwise we'd be creating a double-standard that could harm articles on valid religions.--T. Anthony 01:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you meant the change was "Of small importance; trivial". Did you instead mean that our bringing it up was "Marked by narrowness of mind, ideas, or views"? Is there some other definition of petty that I am lacking that would better apply? --Justanother 22:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Not everyone agrees that stuff like the "Bubble Gum Incident" is Scientology doctrine. In fact, there's NO verifiable proof that it is. However, surely everyone agrees that this stuff DID originate with Hubbard, so let's call the article Space opera and L. Ron Hubbard. There's no reason to want to shoehorn this stuff into Scientology except to try and make it look stupid. You wouldn't want that, now would you? Highfructosecornsyrup 21:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
None of this "Obscene Dog"-type stuff is "doctrine" according to the dictionary definition of the word, the Doctrine Wikipedia article, or most importantly, any Scientology doctrinal text such as The Scientology Handbook. Not everything that ever came out of Hubbard's mouth is "Scientology doctrine". Highfructosecornsyrup 21:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
What's your source for that statement? (I mean, is there a "HCOPL 23 May, 19xx I WAS JUST KIDDING" that says which is what?) AndroidCat 04:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
What statement are you referring to? Are you really saying that you believe that everything that ever came out of Hubbard's mouth is "Scientology doctrine"? Highfructosecornsyrup 04:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
What is your source which says which statements by Hubbard are doctrine and which aren't? Are there special autographed versions of the lectures with "just joking" anotations? AndroidCat 04:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't need a source because I am not an article. This article needs a source if you want it to say that the "Obscene Dog Incident" is part of Scientology doctrine. Why would you want to have an article with such a misleading title? You KNOW it's misleading. You KNOW that most Scientologists have never heard of it. The article itself even basically says as much. The authors and defenders of this article seem to want to use the widest possible definition of "doctrine" so that anything Hubbard ever said, no matter how wacky (and yes, he said many wacky things) can be held up as "Scientology doctrine" for the purposes of ridicule, and you KNOW that's the only reason to enumerate this long over-detailed list of stuff like Gorilla Goals and Aircraft Doors and Bubble Gum, none of which can be found in The Scientology Handbook. Highfructosecornsyrup
If the The Scientology Handbook was published in 1994 (but strangely by Hubbard), what's its issue authority? It sounds like you want us to swallow on an awful lot of Original Research about what is and is not doctrine. Let's have cites all around about that, thank you. But it seems you KNOW exactly what I KNOW, so I leave the floor to you. (Open mic night.) AndroidCat 05:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
You keep trying to shift the burden of proof over to me. Doesn't work that way. The article currently fails to make a case for its assertions. This article's sources do not say what the article says. "Doctrine" is not defined in the article, so the reader is deliberately left with the impression that Scientology is all about the Marcabs and the Helatrobans. Highfructosecornsyrup 05:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
When we, as Scientologists, leave the "heavy lifting" to critics or editors with easy access to only critical sources then we do not have a lot of room to complain about how those editors "load" the articles (heavy lifting . . . load?). Some room, just not a lot. We can only, IMO, ask them to be true to their sources, we cannot ask them to "uncriticalize" their critical sources. That is what often happens, though. The Scientologist comes here, sees it all skewed and misrepresented and complains that the editors are all acting in bad faith, The editors go, like, "WTF?" The editors are being true to their sources and cannot easily see the blatent bias in those sources because they often (with exceptions, of course) have no or very little experience dealing with real Scientology or real Scientologists. The evaluation that they are "bad faith" often made by the Scientologists acts as a "wrong indicator" and causes upset (it is very upsetting for someone to tell you what is "wrong" with you and they, themselves, be wrong about that. As I may have myself made that self-same offense above, let me state that it is also likely true that many editors DO see the bias in those source and try to use them as best they can in a neutral fashion; making NPOV stew out of POV meat; not sure how possible that is). The only workable solution is for Scientologists to take the pandetermined (caring for all sides of a debate or upset; not taking sides) position and sort out the offending article first then bring up any questions as to its notability. The solution is not, IMO, to attack the article; that just leads to more games condition (human behavior seen in entrenched partisan stands; digging in, defending, attacking, etc.) By sort out I mean fix it, make it true. The truth is that there is lots of Space Opera in Scientology (in quantity, not percentage, the percentage is tiny); the truth is most of it is not doctrine; some of it is; some of it is older doctrine but key policy (HCOB Tech Degrades) says ALL Scientology tech remains valid so the only statement that could be made about older line charts might be that they are not on the Bridge (though who knows as the Upper Bridge is secret so even that cannot be reliably stated); it is true is that, in context of Scientology; space opera is "no big deal, like, so what"; it is true that much of it is non-notable Hubbard banter. If a Scientologist's mission here is not to present the truth about this subject but instead to suppress the information then that Scientologist is acting as an enemy to the goals of wikipedia and wikipedians will treat the Scientologist as an enemy (and subsequent Scientologists too until proven otherwise). --Justanother 13:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Left: Since we are talking Scientology "doctrine" then doctrinal advices as to the nature of this material take precedence, not critics' opinions. It is up to the Scientologists here to find and present those advices. Doctrinal materials like the definition and nature of "para-Scientology" from the Tech. Dict. and sources referenced therein along with LRH's own disclaimers as to the nature of this matter should be presented early on; the same PDC tape that mentions Arslycus makes the distinction and it appears in other tapes. Then we can discuss the notability of including every wacky thing he ever said. So first, HFCS, I would recommend that you find a few references that speak to the misc. stuff that is NOT claimed by anyone with real familiarity with the subject (and I include "apostates" in the same category as Scientologists in this case); NOT claimed to be part of the tech. That obviously does not apply to Xenu as knowledgable apostates claim he is and the CoS has taken action that tend to validate that. So first get some refs; then divide the material in the article into "tech" and "wacky comments"; finally discuss the notability of any or all of it. --Justanother 05:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Do it my way and the existing title is just fine as it would then be an actual referenced discussion of Space Opera in Scientology Doctrine. --Justanother 05:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Before I go to all that trouble for something that will probably still be ignored anyway, I'd like for it first to be addressed that there are statements in this article the way it is right now that are not borne out by the reference sources. Once the outright lies are removed from the article's very premise, then we can get into dissecting the rest of the material. Highfructosecornsyrup 18:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it works that way, i.e. that you make a case here and get all this agreement first. The better way to go about it is called WP:BOLD in that you make well-thought out corrections that are totally defensible to anyone seeking to support the WP:PILLARS. Then you will find that your edits tend to stick. So start with the most obvious case and see how it goes; correct yourself; continue. --Justanother 18:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, the problem is, the primary change I want to make is to pin down and define what constitutes "doctrine" in the very first paragraph. But if did that, it would disqualify half the article from existing, and would necessitate its removal. And this, of course, would result in an uproar from many editors whose position seems to be "I don't care if it's not really Scientology doctrine, I think it's hilarious and so we're keeping it just the way it is!" Highfructosecornsyrup 18:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
In general religious doctrine is a body of teachings accepted as true or authoritative by the adherents of said religion. For this stuff to be considered doctrine I'd think it'd be necessary that the higher level Scientologists believe these stories to be literally or "allegorically" true. Meaning they either literally believe all this stuff actually happened or they believe these stories are a kind of parable that teach an important moral or ethical truth. It's not clear to me this Space Opera does either thing, but I don't know enough to make a solid statement.--T. Anthony 06:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of being taken seriously we might want to simply rename this to List of really weird stuff said by Scientologists that they apparently think is true but everyone else thinks is a total hoot. Then all the HYLBTL (Have You Lived . . . ) stuff can stay in. --Justanother 19:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
For me OT testimonials are similar to my Christian friends and their "Angel Sightings" and "Jesus Protecting" them stories. Or the stories told by advanced Aikidoka about paranormal aiki phenomena: Interesting, harmless and believable enough for other Christians/ Aikidoka but they tend unfailingly to get my eyes to rolling (as do most OT anectdotes). They are not doctrine by any stretch of the imagination. ---Slightlyright 20:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
And when was a declaimer about that added to HYLBTL? I don't remember any "Oh yeah, these are just stories" text in the adverts for the book in the 1970s. AndroidCat 02:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
So what? If you bother to read the book, you will learn that the book is a collection of stories of alleged past-life recollections by people during auditing. You have to do some pretty crazy mental gymnastics to try to frame these people's remembrances as "Scientology doctrine". Highfructosecornsyrup 02:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

(conflict and left) You are not suggesting that the incidents in HYLBTL are "doctrine" are you? The concept of past lives is doctrine, those are just stuff that people came up with in session. No one says that they are stories if by stories you mean made-up stories. They were subjectively true for the person that recounted them but they are not doctrine. Just like LRH's far-out off-the-cuff examples were subjectively true for him but only for him. --Justanother 02:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What is "Scientology doctrine"?

Well, I'll tell you: This is doctrine, and it has nothing to do with the Obscene Dog Incident or the anonymous past life memories in HYLBTL. You will never, never, ever, ever find reliable verifiable sources that state that these things are "Scientology doctrine", and yet that's precisely what this article is presenting. Talk about original research and conspiracy theory! Highfructosecornsyrup 03:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Whole Track and past lives are certainly part of Scientology doctrine. The "anonymous past life memories" in HYLBTL were the ones selected by L. Ron Hubbard as examples and published in a book with his name on it. The Space Opera parts are just part of the Whole Track, even before Incident II in OT-III. AndroidCat 03:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
You still don't get it. You're talking about the CONCEPT of past lives, in general. These SPECIFIC ANECDOTES about past lives are not in themselves "Scientology doctrine". Highfructosecornsyrup 15:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes they are examples of incidents run by preclears on the whole track, meaning past lives. But they are not doctrine any more than the hamburger I had for lunch is "cooking". Doctrine is that there is such a thing as past lives and you can contact them in session and by auditing those past lives, you will have some subjective benefit. That is what a "real" article on the subject would say. Would an example or two help explain what is meant as the doctrine? Sure. BTW, is this article mostly OR anyway as far as the commentary that accompanies the weird bits? Like this "It is not clear to what degree the typical Scientologist personally shares the official belief in "space opera", though the above advertisement features in an "entry-level" publication." That reads like OR to me. Can I just change that bit to what I just wrote and include a few of the incidents as examples? --Justanother 03:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Reply to T. Anthony: You misunderstand the nature of these incidents and how they fit into Scientology. Scientology is primarily about "process" (it fact much of it is called "processing"). The actual incidents have no meaning nor importance except subjective meaning to the person that recounts them. But they are "memories" of the individual. What is important is the therapy of finding the concealed "postulate" or decision hiding under the memory. The memory does not even need to be true to the person; if he gets the postulate and feels the relief and gains an understanding of his own life then that all that is required. Whether he remembers buggering a cadet in the engine room of a starship 10 billion years ago (OK, that one was mine) or that he had raisin bran for breakfast this morning and bit into a stone, it is of equal value if it answers the auditing question and running the incident (recovering the memory) does him some good. They are individuals' memories, they are not doctrine. Hell, it is not even doctrine that they are "true" in any sense other than that they came up in sessions and running them out brought visible relief to the preclear. --Justanother 06:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
I was just explaining what I thought "doctrine" as a term means. Something that is considered subjectively important for individuals would not be a doctrine, correct?--T. Anthony 07:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Every single thought and memory that every single human, living or dead, ever had is not doctrine. Right. Those are what Scientology deals with. They are not the doctrine of Scientology. Every single tooth that every single human, living or dead, ever had is not dentistry doctrine (theory, technology). Those are what dentistry deals with. A book on dentistry might have a picture of someone's tooth in it. That still does not make that particular tooth "dentistry". Saying Scientology doctrine is every incident every run in any session is the same as saying dentistry science is every rotten tooth anyone ever had pulled. Ludicrous. Perhaps that analogy will give you a feel for what Scientologists think when they see non-doctrinal incidents, examples, and stray remarks presented as doctrine. To the degree that Scientology says that something for sure is true for everyone then it might be called doctrine. So include History of Man, credible claims by ex-Scientologists as to what is on the secret levels, etc. But don't include every "tooth", only the ones that LRH specifically says that every preclear has and that Scientology can address. I hope that I have helped clarify the difference and better define for non-Scientologists what exactly is "Space opera in Scientology doctrine" - for Scientologists it is pretty clear (which is why all our bitching sounds the same). --Justanother 16:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

knee-jerk reverting

It's odd that the editors doing all the knee-jerk reverting are also NOT discussing their edits on the talk page and NOT giving any reasons for why they think the Obscene Dog Incident is "Scientology doctrine". Android Cat has made some small effort, but pointing out that the subject of "Past Lives" may or may not be Scientology doctrine has nothing to do with whether or not an anonymous person's alleged past-life memories of being on another planet are. And that's what's being reverted. No one is going to find verifiable non-conspiracy-kook sources that state that these things are "Scientology doctrine". If these editors continue to blindly revert and refuse to even enter a discussion as to what constitutes "Scientology doctrine", I think we'll have to take this to mediation and let some unbiased editors weigh in on this. Highfructosecornsyrup 18:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Routine violation of the spirit and text of WP:BOLD which states:

Be bold in contributions, but not in destructions. Editing is a collaborative effort, so editing boldly should not be confused with reverting boldly. This only leads to edit wars. Use the talk page instead. A simple guideline for simple reverting is that it works best for, and is really intended as, a tool against CLEAR vandalism. So save it for that! In cases other than vandalism, somebody is trying to be constructive. Even if they are doing it badly, and even if they are completely and foolishly wrong, there are usually more polite and constructive ways to deal with them than simply returning the article back to the pristine way (you think) it should remain. So, here's the time to think of better solutions.

If you're tempted to revert for anything but clear vandalism, take a deep breath; it may be better to discuss it on the talk page or build on the previous edit with a new edit of your own. It may be even better to simply do nothing for twenty-four hours while you cool down. Reverting isn't always collaborative editing, but often a cheap shortcut. (And, it doesn't help that you're limited in space for your revert "edit summary" comment. Over-succinctness may lead to rude-sounding stuff.) Be careful if a revert touches off a revert war. If a revert war begins, then collaboration is not working, and editing the article boldly by reverting is not collaboration. Instead it attempts to force one editor's will on the other editors, which will never work. Such edits will not survive. The "correctness" or "truthfulness" of the edit is irrelevant at this point (See: BOLD, revert, discuss cycle).

I understand that BOLD is guidance not policy but "It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow."
Solution: First, be very sure that your edits are justified. Second, realize that it is a VERY few editors that are boldly reverting your edits. Point them at this guidance and ask them to please honor it. Realize that lots of people watch what goes on here but do not step in and realize that many of those people can see exactly what is happening. If you edit the article to increase its "truth value" and not to suppress information and if you cite correctly then your edits should stand. Which leads to third, remember that WP:3RR is, in part, designed to protect one editor against one "bold reverter"; so the editor has the upper hand unless another "bold reverter" jumps in. In that case it is time to rethink as you may be doing something that will not stand in any event and you need to correct yourself in some way. Mediation is always an option of course, too. --Justanother 18:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, let's face facts, here. Your objections are based entirely upon a technicality which frankly seems to exist mostly in your imagination, namely, the idea that "Scientology doctrine" means something other than Scientology's body of teachings even though that's what doctrine is. Your representation of the situation is highly dishonest; you talk about "an anonymous person's alleged past-life memories" when a more accurate description would be "the alleged past-life memories of a Scientologist whose name was withheld by L. Ron Hubbard when he published the alleged past-life memories of several dozen Scientologists presenting them as alleged proof of the results that could be obtained from the practice of Scientology in his book Have You Lived Before This Life, which was originally published in 1960 and which the Church of Scientology has continued publishing since then for over four decades." To claim, as you did in this edit summary, that 'these person's claims are NOT part of "Scientology doctrine" in any conceivable way', is so at odds with the complete picture, which you must be aware of, that it cannot help but bring your own sincerity into question. "the subject of "Past Lives" may or may not be Scientology doctrine"? Friend, Hubbard stated that people wouldn't receive auditing if they didn't accept the 'truth' of past lives. 'No one is going to find verifiable non-conspiracy-kook sources that state that these things are "Scientology doctrine"'? Why yes, that might indeed be true on a level of pure mechanical literality. On the same level of pure mechanical literality, of course, we'd be even less likely to ever find "verifiable non-conspiracy-kook sources" which state that these things are "not Scientology doctrine"; if you disagree, you're perfectly welcome to go find one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Antaeus but you are off base here. The body of all teachings of a religion are not doctrine. If they were then everything that came out of my local 4 square pastor's mouth during a sermon would be doctrine and it obviously isn't. The truth is that everything Hubbard said is NOT doctrine. I can't see how you would imagine that hubbard repeating what someone said to him could be doctrine. I think instead that you intend for scientology to be portrayed as ridiculous so you argue at every turn against HFCS' perfectly sensible call for a consensus on a definition of doctrine and for credible sources for the article's claims that these anectdotes are doctrine. Please stop all the ad hominem attacks, they are beneath you. Scientology Doctrine is contained in HCOBs and HCOPLs. ---Slightlyright 04:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion, but opinions aren't sources. The things you say simply aren't backed up by the article's sources. Show me a non-conspiracy-nut website that specifically states "The Obscene Dog Incident is part of Scientology doctrine". To say that I have to go out and find sources to disprove your unsourced proclamations is a middle-school debate-team kind of thing to say. I don't have to find any sources because I am not presenting any information to the article. YOU have to find sources if you want the article to continue to say what it currently says. Highfructosecornsyrup 22:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion, but opinions aren't sources, and you're proving my point: instead of providing any reasonable argument about why Scientology should be divided into "doctrine" and "non-doctrine" along the lines apparent to no one but yourself (with "non-doctrine", of course, to be removed from the article as you have already attempted several times) you instead demand that an even more specific word-for-word phrase be produced for your edification in order to persuade you to cease your hair-splitting. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
If an article says something that isn't true - and more importantly, isn't verifiably sourced, then it has to go. If you can't find a proper, reliable and verifiable source that says the "Obscene Dog Incident" is Scientology doctrine, then it has to go. Let's take this to mediation and get some impartial editors to look at this article - and others - that throw the word "doctrine" around without feeling a need to define it. Highfructosecornsyrup 01:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The concept that one has lived before (past lives) IS Scientology doctrine. The concept that "we are not alone" and those past lives may have been on other planets can be thought of as Scientology doctrine (no point in splitting hairs). The concept that one can contact past incidents, in this life and in previous ones, using Scientology techniques and, in so contacting them, achieve some spiritual betterment IS the heart of Scientology doctrine. Individual memories of any individual, including Hubbard, are, pretty obviously I think, NOT Scientology doctrine. Surely, Antaeus, you can see that difference. --Justanother 23:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Name Change - Extraterrestrial beliefs in Scientology

After reflection this seems a bit of a "no-brainer". "Space opera" is non-encyclopedic as a title. It does not mean "Extraterrestrial Beliefs" to the casual reader or, actually to any non-Scientologist, it means science fiction. But Scientologists define it as non-fiction so the term is inherently confusing as a title. The "space opera" terminology can be explained in the text but let us have a non-ambiguous title, Extraterrestrial beliefs in Scientology. Please give me your thoughts. --Justanother 19:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy with any of these:
Extraterrestrial beliefs in Scientology
Extraterrestrial beliefs and Scientology
Extraterrestrials and Scientology
Extraterrestrial beliefs and L. Ron Hubbard
Space Opera and L. Ron Hubbard
To a lesser degree, I'd be okay with these since they're still a massive improvement over the current misleading title:
Space Opera in Scientology
Space Opera and Scientology
The difference being, of course, that while acknowledging that the Bubble Gum Incident was stated by Hubbard and has some connection to Scientology, it is not part of Scientology doctrine except in the most ridiculously all-inclusive sense. By that same all-inclusive standard, we would also have to consider "Scientology doctrine" to include Hubbard's many tangents gone off on during lectures which had nothing at all to with Scientology, old war stories, stories told to illustrate a point but clearly not necessarily real, anecdotes from his personal life, and moments such as when, in one lecture, he commented at length about the hors d'oeuvres being served at the lecture and how tasty they were. Who's ready to start Hors d'oeuvres in Scientology doctrine? Highfructosecornsyrup 20:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
If you want to be taken seriously, you'd do better to eschew such ridiculous straw men. The problem I see is that you want a magical line to be drawn that includes everything Hubbard said which doesn't reflect poorly on Scientology as "Scientology doctrine" and neatly excludes everything Hubbard said which is clearly unreal. You can't find any rational basis on which to draw this line, so your only alternative is to misportray the other side as trying to interpret everything in "the most ridiculously all-inclusive sense". It's not really fooling anyone. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't care whether you take me seriously or not. I'm asking you to provide sources for the unsourced statements in the article as per Wikipedia policies. That's all. Anything else you have to say, including your personal opinions, is meaningless to me. Now, would someone civil care to address my concerns? Highfructosecornsyrup 00:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Straw men are not civil, HFCS. I appreciate that you have a job to do, through fair means or foul, and that the easiest sophistry that comes to mind for achieving your agenda is the false dichotomy: either you are going to allow me to personally select which portions of Hubbard's teachings count as "doctrine" and which don't, or you must be stupid ridiculous people who want absurd things like comments on the hors d'oeuvres to be classified as doctrine. The problem for you is that we're not as stupid as you would like to think, and a simple sophistry like that is unlike to fool anyone; you will not be permitted to whitewash out of existence portions of the article based on your unsourced personal opinion on which of Hubbard's teachings "count". -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
How many angry little posts are you going to hurl without answering my questions: What IS the definition of "Scientology doctrine" according to this article, and what sources exist to prove that these wacky stories of Hubbard's really are part of it? I want to see something from a verifiable source that specifically says "The Bubble Gum Incident is Scientology doctrine" and you can't produce it because it doesn't exist. Highfructosecornsyrup 02:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's not get overly into each others personalities. What matters is "What is the basis for thinking this is a doctrine in Scientology?" and on the other side "What is the basis for thinking this does not really relate to Scientology at all?" I think both sides are not giving much support for their positions. I think there might be a middle ground between "it's part of their doctrine" and "it's just a silly story he told."--T. Anthony 08:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if is middle ground but the simple truth is what I have already stated and restated ad nauseum. Past lives, yes doctrine. A few important ET incidents, i.e. those actually in books (History of Man, HCOBs, etc.) stating "This is what you run" or alledgedly on OT levels (but only those claimed as such by OT and credible ex-scios), yes doctrine. Other incidents that came up in sessions or stray remarks by Hubbard on tapes, not doctrine. Also change name due to its ambiguity of meaning, scio vs. non-scio. --Justanother 12:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually you might be one of the few Scientologists I've dealt with to seem fairly well-reasoned and sensible.--T. Anthony 13:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess if I did not believe in a wacko philosophy/religion/cult/delusion I could have that statement without the "fairly? Laff. I guess us Scientologists have to take what we can get so thanks! --Justanother 19:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Hah, well maybe so. I'm sure atheists have given me a compliment like that. "You're more rational than most Catholics I know." Maybe now I'll appreciate that better.--T. Anthony 23:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Smile. Then you certainly know what I mean! --Justanother 23:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Space Opera is quite appropriate to me: we are talking about a detailed story involving an evil emperor, rebellion, etc., not just philosophical views of extra-terrestrial life. Also, you state: "stray remarks by Hubbard on tapes, not doctrine". The Religious Technology Center itself considers Hubbard's books, tape-recorded lectures and films to be Scientology's scriptures. Raymond Hill 17:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Two issues here:
1) Use of the term "space opera" in the title of the article. It has an intrinsically ambiguous meaning as used here because most people consider it to mean fiction but the article is presenting it as truth to Scientologists. I think it is in the title for its "snicker-value" and such use in beneath us here. Use ET in the title and discuss the term "space opera" in the body. Comments please?
2) Yes, for reasons of copyright protection all LRH's works are copyrighted as "Scripture". Let's get real here. Not every stray remark in those tapes is part of Scn doctrine, i.e. has a place in Scientology as practiced or even as once practiced. If the Xenu incident is reliably claimed to be on OT 3 then it is doctrine. If Hubbard says something on a tape like "You have to be careful calling people names. It gets them angry. There was this one society many millenia ago on planet Ferqebvre where they . . ." that does not make "planet Ferqebvre" doctrine. That is how Hubbard spoke. So you ask "Well, that may be all well and good for you but how can I, a non-Scientologist, tell what is and what is not doctrine." Well, I am going to be honest here. The real way is by doing REAL research, not sitting in front of a computer reading critic sites. The real way you would find out is by going to a Scientology church and finding out how it works and what part "space opera" really plays. If that is too much trouble then you could ask Scientologists. Like me for instance. If you think that I won't give you an honest answer (though why you would think that is beyond me as I have, I think, shown myself to be "straight shooter") then ask knowledgable ex-Scientologists and Freezoners. The point is ASK SOMEONE THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT SCIENTOLOGY DOCTRINE IS. Sorry for the yelling but that is just so weird to me that people will take what a critic that has never taken a Scientology course in his life, nor done the research I refer to above, says to be the doctrine over someone that has lived it for 30 years. We are talking doctrine here, what are the beliefs. Not what are the criticisms. Anyway, what is doctrine? Easy. LRH never meant the tapes to convey doctrine. All doctrine is contained in books and HCOBs and other written material (that were often developed from the tapes). Scientologists listen to the tapes to gain understanding of what is in the HCOBs by listening to the context and presentation. And no, I cannot source that. But I can source that Scientology has no doctrine at all because it is all "what is true for you is true for you". But neither approach; all doctrine or no doctrine, serves the encyclopedia if the point of the article is what parts of ET have relevance to the practice of Scientology. If that is what you want the article to be about I stand ready to assist; if the real point is "How silly can we make Scientology look (by misrepresenting their beliefs)" then I will have to oppose. --Justanother 20:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Space Opera is LRH's own term for it. As for knowing, that would depend on the "SOMEONE THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY KNOW"'s course level. Much of the space opera stuff dosn't start until at least OT-II, so if the "someone" is a PC, that's not going be enough. And you might want to check the level of some critics who left with tech qualifications of the highest, and not just courses, but also top level auditors and cramming officers. (Retroactively revoked, of course, when they were declared SPs and Enemies.) AndroidCat 20:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I have repeatedly said things like "then ask knowledgable ex-Scientologists and Freezoners." So ask them. Do you fit in that category? Then what do you say? I find, personally, that most "notable" critic sites are run by people with little or no actual Scientology experience. My feeling is that that's because people with considerable Scientology experience might have a lot of trouble hosting all the lies, ridicule, and misrepresentations that are featured (granted often along with true reports of the experiences of ex-scios and critics) and which lies, ridicule, and misrepresentations contribute vastly to their internet "notability". Knowledgable ex-scios do have a few sites and do contribute to the others. I know "Space Opera" is LRH's term but it is an ambiguous term to use for the title. Introduce and explain that term in the body. Can I use LRH's term for critics? (what would that be? "suppressives"? "criminals"? - not my words, just what LRH might call them) can I use that as the title in some article entitled "List of Scientology critics" (i.e. "List of suppressive criminals") if it existed or the for name of that category? (I am not suggesting that and do not care to either, just so you know) Of course not, we use the non-ambiguous, non-Scientology term. Same idea. Use "Extraterrestrial Beliefs" not "Space Opera" as the title; use the non-ambiguous, non-Scientology term for the title. --Justanother 21:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
One difficulty might be that I don't think there are many higher OT types among former Scientologists. John Brodie and maybe Vicki Aznaran would count, but I'm not sure how much they say on the matter. (The situation is not unique to Scientology, I believe few of the Druze "uqqal" leave.)--T. Anthony 10:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I have seen, on critic sites, what seem to me to be credible representations of all the OT levels with the exception of the Fishman lunacy about OT 8 which other ex-scios have discredited and stated to be something else more credible, IMO. None of those ex-scio representations about ET in doctrine contradict the point I make that misc ramblings and examples are not doctrine. And that still leaves my other point that "Space Opera" is a non-encyclopedic and ambiguous term to be used in the title. Let's do it right and call the article "Extraterrestrial beliefs in Scientology" and then talk about what is doctrine and what is not and the use of the term "Space Opera" in the body of the article. Do I have agreement on that? --Justanother 15:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The proposed title change seems like a reasonable way to address some of the more eggregious shortcomings of this article go ahead and make the change. It will still need some work after the name change though, imo ---Slightlyright 17:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Quote: "Do I have agreement on that?" Not from me. "Space Opera" is clearly define in Scientology's own glossary as "of or relating to time periods on the whole track millions of years ago which concerned activities in this and other galaxies. Space opera has space travel, spaceships, spacemen, intergalactic travel, wars, conflicts, other beings, civilizations and societies, and other planets and galaxies. It is not fiction and concerns actual incidents and things that occurred on the track. See also whole track." (my emphasis.) And now this same glossary defines "Whole track" as "the moment to moment record of a person’s existence in this universe in picture and impression form." Clearly, this article is accurately titled. Raymond Hill 19:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

RH, so you think it is appropriate, in this instance, to title an article with an ambiguous term that has a general population meaning different from the meaning used in the article? General population meaning = pulp fiction; scientology meaning = valid material that might come up in a session. I just want to be sure that I have your position on that issue straight because that is the crux of my argument. --Justanother 19:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a strange contrast with Supernatural abilities in Scientology doctrine which apparently should be changed because it isn't a term used by Hubbard or Scientology. AndroidCat 22:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Please do not confuse my position with that of another editor. On that proposal I only really objected to "doctrine" (the other was just a tangent re "natural laws" and I clarified my postion in my last post there), "supernatural" is just fine with me. Please give my proposal here due consideration and tell me what you think. Thanks --Justanother 22:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I will propose "Space opera in Scientology teachings" as a middle ground. It is undeniable that Scientology OT Levels and Hubbard's teachings and lectures about outer space and past lives are a part of what Scientology teaches to its members that take upper level courses and listen to Hubbard's lectures. I'm open to discussing the issue of whether its "doctrine", but I don't believe that it is justifiable to discount all of Hubbard's teachings about Space Opera to be fanciful silly stories. Scientology says itself that Space Opera is NOT FICTION. Vivaldi (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Cambridge dictionary: "Doctrine: a belief or set of beliefs, especially political or religious, taught and accepted by a particular group."
Encarta: "Doctrine: ideas taught as truth: a body of ideas, particularly in religion, taught to people as truthful or correct."
Doctrine sounds much more accurate to me than "teachings", which doesn't necessarily imply beliefs. The space opera theme is important in the scientology doctrine, the highest "confidential" levels support this. I am convinced that the present title is the most appropriate. Raymond Hill 22:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The common teaching/belief/doctrine is that you are a spirit and that you have lived before. That LRH went to Venus in 1954 or that I went to Mars in a past life is none of those as regards Scientology. Those are subjective, individual ideas, like "do I like Starbucks coffee", and have equally as much relationship to teaching/belief/doctrine (really it does, not a straw man - Scientology has a lot to say about likes and dislikes). That is the point I make over and over and over but never seems adequately addressed by "doctrinaires". --Justanother 22:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the soul belief of scientologist is central to the doctrine. But Scientology is a complex set of beliefs. Where we disagree: I believe that Hubbard's space opera (Mars, Venus, all other incidents,) is an important part of the doctrine. Consider the following: a follower of Raël believes that Vorhilon went on a trip with an extra-terrestrial civilization: this story is an important of the Raëlian doctrine. We could also think of the Virgin Mary, which is just another "side story" in the catholic faith, but again, important. The same way, Hubbard's space stories are important and therefore part of the doctrine (the importance become obvious when one reads the upper levels of Scientology.) Raymond Hill 14:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks like we agree then. Not that Scientology is complex; I could explain the important bits in a brief essay (all respect, but the apparent complexity comes from misunderstandings and that phenomena is covered in Scn Study Tech); but regarding the ET aspects. The general idea that pre-Earth past lives were lived on other planets, that otherworldly entities "implanted" thetans, and that such implanting is part of our current condition is a definite part of Scientology worldview and you are introduced to that very early on. As an example of how early this sort of stuff can come up; I audited a preclear once on "Book 1" (beginning Dianetics) and he went into a past-life (this planet) incident. You start hearing LRH mention this stuff as soon as you get started on the Student Hat (the first non-introductory course that you do). It is very "so what" to the Scientologist. The only real "doctrine" of Scientology is the tech and the concept that if one applies the tech to another or to a situation then one brings about an improvement. Part of the tech deals with "auditing" in which past incidents are contacted. Innumerable cases have validated that what might be "past lives" come to view in session and that some of these involve other places that Earth. "Past life regression therapy", like other LRH ideas, is even finding its way into more mainstream therapies, albeit slowly. So I agree that ET is an important part of Scientology; the article needs clean-up as to where it fits into "doctrine" and the article also needs a lot of repetitive type examples culled. --Justanother 15:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me be honest: I don't actually have very strong feelings on what title we use for this article. What I do have strong feelings about is anyone's attempt to exploit the exact wording of the title -- even if it can be argued that that wording is somehow inexact or incorrect -- to try and change the article's subject. That is the tail wagging the dog. You want the article's title to accurately and precisely describe the contents? Excellent; I'm right there with you. You want the article's title to be interpreted as a very precise description of what the contents should be, and as a justification for slicing out whatever does not match that description? Don't bother trying to cite WP:BOLD to cover that action, because it won't.

I have some thoughts for possible title changes but I will have to post those later. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I like honesty and agreement! I really have no problem with the article as I am not "ashamed" of Scientology beliefs. I just think that the format; "Ron said funny things" - "Here is one" - "Here is another" - "Look another" - ad nauseum; serves no scholarly or encyclopedic purpose and putting more there than serve to demonstrate the content, i.e. discussion of the place of ET in Scientology, putting more there serves mainly to ridicule Scientology and Hubbard and that is not encyclopedic either. I am glad we are getting somewhere. --Justanother 23:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Honesty, yes, but from what you've just said, I'm not sure we're in agreement. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think that if you want this article to be "List of every single outrageous space opera doctrine, thought, incident, comment, example, etc. ever made in the body of L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology and Dianetics work"; if that is what you want it to be then I think you stand pretty much out on that limb by yourself. It is supposed to be an article on the the place of space opera in Scientology, complete with all notable instances like Xenu, and just examples of non-notable instances, like Arslycus, not what I think you might like it to be. Because I think you want it to be cruft. Scientology critic cruft. Comments from others please. --Justanother 12:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
And I think you want to make the loud announcement "this article cannot contain every single last detail of purported information released by Hubbard or the Church of Scientology pertaining to extraterrestrial life" and then follow it up with the quiet assertion "so I will decide what makes the cut and what doesn't". You have been harping repeatedly upon your idea that some of the outrageous assertions about extraterrestrial life which Hubbard presented with a straight face were actually jokes, metaphors, tall tales not meant to be taken seriously, et cetera. And you know what? If you have reliable sources asserting such things, especially if they are asserting them about specific beliefs and not merely making the general assertion "well, some of what Hubbard said must have been just joking so you can't hold him to any one thing that he said," that information is very welcome here. However, all you've been doing is asserting your own opinion that: a) in and amongst the assertions that Hubbard made about extraterrestrial happenings that he intended to be taken as absolutely and objectively true are assertions that he made about extraterrestrial happenings that he intended to be taken as metaphors or entertaining little flights of fancy; b) Scientologists and ex-Scientologists can be assumed to know which is which and critics (even those who are ex-Scientologists) can be assumed to have no clue; c) the article is too long and needs to have "cruft" parts removed. It doesn't take a genius to see what road that is going down, and it's not a good road. We've been down it before and what it leads to is things like an editor mocking and belittling others for not accepting his opinion (obviously more valuable than anyone else's because he's a Scientologist and the most unbiased view is always that of the heavily invested participant) that in the middle of an Ethics Declare spelling out what punishment was fit for people who were "enemies of mankind, the planet and all life", LRH suddenly stopped to make a "joke", completely not to be taken seriously, about auditing process R2-45. Of course! Totally a joke! How come you critics are too gullible to recognize a joke! In the middle of a completely serious Ethics Declare, that's where you find jokes! We've been down the whole road and that is why we say "nothing doing" when we start seeing the same old signposts as before. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I kinda thought an encyclopedic article on the subject might be the point. My bad.

In response; how many times do I have to tell you that I have no problem listening to "even those who are ex-Scientologists" and I present to you that if you (that means you, Anteaus Feldspar) have not personally (as in you) listened to the ENTIRE tape (as in the whole thing) where the Arslycus incident is mentioned, for instance, then you have zero idea of where it fits in Scientology "doctrine" and I defy you to find me an RS that says that incident is Scientology doctrine. I don't need an RS to pull; you need an RS to keep it and it is my good faith and willingness to work within the process and nothing more that prevents me from pulling unsourced speculation as to what is doctrine and what is not.

And do I think that I am more qualified than you to "decide what makes the cut and what doesn't"? All due respect, but HELL YES. And I suspect that there are many here that may agree. And not for any fault on your part (this is not WP:NPA) but for the fact that I have much more experience with both sides of the issue. And we are talking about what is Scientology doctrine here or how does ET fit into Scientology so my experience counts for a lot. If we were explaining what is the exact criticisms of Scientology and how do critics feel about Scientology then I would likely default to you. Your view is one-sided and it happens to be the side that does not have the answer to this question. Sorry, but it does not.

Oh, and of course you realize that the R2-45 point is a red herring (or a straw man, take your pick of logical fallacy, or take both). I would never say that referencing R2-45 in the context of an Ethics Order is a joke; I would instead find it appalling. I have seen that Ethics Order (only on the internet, I mean, just like you) and wish that I could find it on an RS instead of a critic site but I will take it with a "grain of salt" as possibly true (or possibly fabricated, I really don't know). --Justanother 22:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You state: "I defy you to find me an RS that says that incident is Scientology doctrine." Here is what the Religious Technology Center states: "The Scientology religion is based exclusively upon L. Ron Hubbard's research, writings and recorded lectures — all of which constitute the Scriptures of the religion. These encompass more than 500,000 pages of writings, nearly 3,000 recorded lectures and more than 100 films." Looking at court cases would probably uncover additional reliable sources. Raymond Hill 02:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
And I think that you have to use a bit of good sense too. The religion is based on those materials; they do not equal the religion. Not to mention the purpose of that statement had little to do with delineating what the doctrine of Scientology is.
Have you listened to LRH tapes? A whole tape? He is all over the map with quips and examples. If he says "Here is what Rommel did wrong protecting Europe against the Allied invasion" does that then, in your mind, make the Normandy invasion, Rommel, and WWII, all Scientology doctrine???
Your point is useless when it comes to figuring out what Scientology doctrine is; less than useless in fact because it is an excuse to throw out good sense, research, and scholarship. Its only value is "nanner nanner" value.
I have already said that past lives, ET in a general sense, some or many specific incidents, are doctrine. Arslycus is not.
Yes, you can show me where Xenu is doctrine. Yes, you can show me where History of Man is doctrine. That is fine. I defy you to show me where Rommel, portrait photography, what Ron had for dinner, or Arslycus is doctrine. But they are all mentioned with equal relevance to Scientology in taped lectures.
And if you think that you have just done that then I counter that, with all due repect, you have no idea what Scientology doctrine is and are just playing "gotcha". Are we playing "gotcha" here or are we trying to write the truth about what part ET plays in Scientology?
--Justanother 02:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Gee, Justanother, that's a very confusing response. Raymond provided you with the reliable source you asked for, and instead of acknowledging that he gave you what he asked for, your response really sounds more like "I know the answer I want and if you don't give it to me it means you got it wrong." -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Let me reword it then. Saying "Golly, it is ALL doctrine. Everything Ron ever said, no matter how casually, is doctrine" just shows me that there is, to be polite, some misconceptions here as to what constitutes Scientology doctrine, and rather than try to actually discover what the doctrine is by looking at what the CoS says is doctrine and what knowledgable ex-Scientologists say is doctrine; instead of an approach that involves actually understanding the topic; we are going to go against everything anyone with knowledge of the subject says and we are going to say what we like cause we found a statement by RTC made for legal and copyright reasons that seems to back us up. Pu-leese. --Justanother 02:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your personal attacks, Justanother, where you suggest that anyone who doesn't agree with you must not be interested in an encyclopedic article. They make it very clear where you're coming from. So does the fact that after suggesting that we change the title of the article so that it no longer includes the word "doctrine", you went right back to insisting that you have the right, power and obligation to pull anything from the article that doesn't meet your definition of "doctrine".
As for the R2-45 point, it is neither a red herring nor a straw man. I am glad you do indeed acknowledge that it would be appalling and not at all a joke if L. Ron Hubbard had flatly stated in the context of an Ethics Order "Any Sea Org member contacting any of them is to use Auditing Process R2-45" (or, if you acknowledge the generally well-regarded The Road To Total Freedom by Roy Wallis as an RS, that it is appalling that L. Ron Hubbard did state exactly that in the HCO Ethics Order of 6 March 1968, 'Rackets Exposed'.) However, it is no straw man to say that someone might actually assert that reference to R2-45 in the middle of an Ethics Order to be a "joke"; as you should know because you were participating on the talk page where he made that claim, someone did indeed claim that R2-45 was a joke, and what's more, asserted that his opinion that it it was a joke was more meaningful than the opinions of anyone who thought otherwise because -- what else? -- because it's his side that knows these things! As you might phrase it, it's his side that has "the answer to this question". As he phrased it: "I would think that anyone who has read or studied very much of it understands completely that Hubbard is both making a joke and stating the actuality. lol." So there's no straw man, here; a straw man might be if no one ever had cited their long years of Scientology experience and demanded that because of those personal credentials, their judgement on the meaning of everything should be treated as superior to all others -- especially those whose judgement comes up with an answer that differs from theirs. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Why are you comparing me with another? Should I take it as a personal attack that you compare me to someone that made a specious argument? Why not address my argument instead of addressing the specious argument of another. That is the very definition of red herring. --Justanother 02:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Why am I comparing you with another? Because you're going down the very same road as that other, and it's you who's trying to drag a red herring across the trail by trying to construe my comments about your behavior as an attack on your person. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Man, oh man. so now you are accusing me of acting in bad faith when my edits do not support that charge. You are way out there now, man. Your edits, on the other hand, do support the concept that you (as wikipediatrix before you) are "protecting" pristine misconceptions against my simple efforts to bring balance and truth to the areas I touch (not to mention Justice and the American Way). --Justanother 15:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Please do one single thing for me. Show me a reliable source that specifically indicates that Arslycus is Scientology doctrine. Can you do that one thing for me? Thanks. --Justanother 21:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you alleging, that the "Philadelphia Doctorate Course" is not scientology doctrine? Or are you alleging, that parts of it are not scientology doctrine? Can this be seen in the transcript, e.g. because it is done in two colors? --Tilman 07:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Yes, I am saying that. Scripture? Yes, if by "scripture" is meant "the holy words of our prophet, L. Ron Hubbard" (laff). That is not what scios think but it is the type of protection that RTC was seeking in making that statement. Scios don't really have scripture nor doctrine; we have "technology". The best analogy I came up with is the one on dentistry above. We are "dentists of the soul". I just invented that. Our doctrine is the tech. The tech is in HCOBs and books and other written material. The tapes are background material. Arslycus is an example to make a point. So we have an example (not even a "tooth" but a "what-if" tooth or a tooth the dentist once saw) in a background material. Far from tech; far from doctrine; yes scripture (sure, why not). --Justanother 16:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Improper cite tag

I am removing the improper citation tag because the person who added it has not explained specifically what is incorrectly cited or misinterpreted. If you want to mention specific passages where the cited text does not support the conclusions in the article then please do so here. I don't believe the current quibble over "doctrine" vs. "Hubbard and Scientology teachings" is worthy of tagging the article with this tag. And since CoS says specifically that Space Opera is NOT FICTION, it is silly to proclaim Hubbard's lectures about whole time track incidents are merely funny stories (at least not without a citation from a RS). Vivaldi (talk) 07:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What we can agree on - rename to "scripture"

Let's start with the fact that the "justification" for calling this all doctrine is that RTC said all is scripture. Not doctrine. So let's start with that bit of truth. If we want to call everything LRH ever said scripture then fine; that is what RTC calls it. You have no RS that says much of this stuff is "doctrine". And, no, the terms are not identical. If we have a consensus I will fix the redirects. --Justanother 16:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth do you think that if you're going to pick such an unholy amount of nits over the term "doctrine" we'd simply blindly agree to you changing it to "scripture"? Far better to just change it to "Scientology", IMHO. And while we're at it, it's rather presumptuous of you to suggest "if we have a consensus" for something you just proposed. How long are you proposing to wait to see "if we have a consensus"? Half an hour? An hour? Is there some reason that making your proposal and waiting to see if it meets consensus is distasteful to you? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Instead of misinterpreting me, why not read what I said. I made the bold move (as in bold edit not bold reversion like the reversion you did). We can agree this is "scripture". That is what is quoted to me chapter and verse from RTC. So OK, it is "scripture". What in the name of whatever makes you think you have an RS that Arslycus is "doctrine"? I asked you for one. You ignored me. Another editor came back with the "scripture catchall". Hey, I can't argue that. Then scripture it is. I said if we have a consensus that this is a righteous rename then I will fix the redirects. I do not have to wait for anything to make a righteous edit and this is a righteous edit. You, on the other hand, do have to wait before reverting. --Justanother 05:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I would've favored the move, but I think you may have acted hastily or without proper process. I've moved articles on my own with little to no discussion, but in those cases they were articles that had no one at the talk page or had no talk page at all. Therefore I did not have the option of discussion. That's clearly not true here. You likely should've held off until there was proper discussion on the move. I'm not trying to be hostile, as said I likely would've supported the move, but generally you have to allow more of a discussion on a move. Particularly for an article that was, for whatever reason, a Featured article.--T. Anthony 11:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the support of the move! I apologize if I seemed hasty but I considered that I was being WP:BOLD and making a pretty obvious change as RTC calling it "scripture" is what critics use as justification for calling it "doctrine". That is weird and that is what caused the upsets with Scientologists. --Justanother 13:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
You state: "You have no RS that says much of this stuff is "doctrine."" Well, you are currently the source that says "Space Opera" in Scientology is not doctrine, it is simply your personal opinion, we can't cite you. And as for the RTC's real intent for copyrighting and trademarking Hubbard's writings, it is also your personal opinion. RTC claims that it is to protect the purity of the scriptures. Raymond Hill 20:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Not sure I get your point? I am not claiming anything (except on the talk page). I have not even changed some of the misinterpretations in the article as to what is doctrine and what is scripture. I just changed the title to align with what we agree on. --Justanother 20:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I quote you: "That is not what scios think but it is the type of protection that RTC was seeking in making that statement." You put forth two opinions of yours here: 1) you state your opinion about what other "scios" think; 2) you state your opinion about the real intent of the RTC with regard to trademarks/copyrights. We can't use you as a source. Also, you changed the title, invoking some consensus which I don't see nowhere: this was an ongoing discussion. I think the previous title should be brought back until it is clear that there is a consensus. And if ever "scripture" comes to be the agreed upon term, I would rather have "scriptures" (with an "S", but we are not there yet, so bringing back "doctrine" as it was before you changed is what I would like now.) [I thought it over: "scripture" is fine with me (although I disagree that "doctrine" was erroneous.) And never mind my 's' for 'scripture', I'm not perfectly fluent in English, thought it was always written with an 's', I see it's correct] Raymond Hill 19:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Original FAC

When this page was moved, the old FAC wasn't correctly archived, so I'm putting it here for whomever wants to fix the template at the top of the talk page - I fixed the FAR.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Space opera in Scientology doctrine

I'd redirect it to scripture, but that would create a mess if you all decide to change the name again. Sandy (Talk) 01:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sandy (Talk) 01:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Interview with a Scientologist

I dicided to ask a Scientologiest about some of this stuff and see if he would shed some light on this. I thought what he said was worth repeating here. He asked not to be taken as a sorce but would give his opinion. Other than that he has been a member for over 20 years and says he is about half way thru the lvls. 

Q. What is your view on Space Opera and what is it?

A. Space Opera is alot of what you would see in Sci Fi movies. Space ships, intergactic stuff, Lasers and aliens. As for my view, well you asked about it with regard to Scientology? (Yes) It is something that its founder comments on - LRH. Most people have no idea why it would be apart of a religion. Thats understandable, it is out there. It comes from Auditing. It comes up WHILE auditing. Most Scientolgists have no idea what its about. But they inevitably run into it. Just about every one has at some point been apart of something like Space Opera at some point on their Whole Track (Memories that predate this life) and so it sooner or later comes up. LRH talks about it, mainly so that Auditors know what to expect. My view of it? I have run into it,... alot. ... (can you tell me anything about it?) Its out there stuff. ... (like what?...) Its rather personal realy. Lots of all the stuff you think of when you say "Sci Fi". But you should get auditing for yourself, then you can have lots of your own memories.

Q. How do you know if you realy remember anything?

A. That is a question that can get you into trouble realy fast. Who has the right to tell you if what you remember is real or not? No matter how they were gotten it is up to the person to sort out for themselves. But little things can help. I once saw a movie with space ships wizzing by. Then went and drew up the scamatics for an ion engene. I had never studied a thing before that. Then 6 years later I saw a Popular Science Mag with an alost mirror image of what I drew. They were not the exact same but there was no doubt they looked light the same machine with simular wording and everything. And that is with no study of any rockets engines of any kind.

Q. I have herd of talk of a guy by the name of Xenu, in something that was to have happened 75 million years ago. I am told it is importiant in Scientology. What can you tell me about it?

A. Who? Never heard of him. LRH has said that there is are plenty of tramatic moments in the lives of thatens over the course of their existance. Some are ones people have in common. LRH said that talk of this stuff will just be problomatic. The insident he is talking about is one such moment. But it is taken up in one of the more advanced lvls. It was for Scientologists that have gotten thru questions like "Does Scientology work?" It was simply a major problem that can up as blocking the road to freedom for Scientologists at that lvl. He talked about it in a lecture called RJ 67. I by no means would try to quote what he said but it had the jist of: It has a powerful effect on people but is simply out of reach for anyone lower on the Bridge (the lvls of Scientology) So much so that it would never even come up. Any effort of address it by Scientologists before they are ready is just trouble waiting to happen. So LRH never made it avalible to anyone but those he thought were ready to address it. If you see anything on it, realize that it is not LRH you are seeing. When LRH refered to it going public as "trouble" well... it would be completely out of context, only quoted by people that -openly violating Church policy- are out to do just that, cause trouble. So what LRH said is drawned in context errors, incorrect assosetion with other ideas only some of which are church related and all of which are out of context. The bottom line is that you will never know what he ment until you do what he says and get upto handling it the way he says. He ment it no other way and he wrote it.

Q. I have seen some figures of the history of the universe where LRH has given some big figures! What is that about? Do you realy beleive its that old?

A. (he laughs) How big were those figures? (Something like 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,... alot! but I have also seen others) Others? Yes, he (LRH) has had some fun with that one. The most common one he uses is 76 trillion I think. But it is not real, its just a big fugure to "wow" ppl. One problem, from what I got, was that it didn't just start all at once. So giving you any exact figure would be open to problems. 76 trillion would be a figure that would say "at this point it looks like the universe we know today" but that is not LRH, that is just my example. Some scientiests say the universe is like 13 billion or something like that. Well.. what are they looking at? Perhaps that part is only 13 billion years old.

Q. Do Scientologiests talk about Space Opeara alot? Like to each other?

A. No. There are little things like hints but its just a fast route to trouble. Like I said many Scientologiests have yet to encounter enough to give them much to work with of their own. Often it only serves to to confuse people that have yet to get control of their own time tracks (past life memories). At some point, I imagine, if you were to get auditing you would likely have to striaten out something that I have said and I have not said much. If you can then imagine what it is like for people that jaber all day about it then you can guess that they could easily end up saying "I was a ruler of Egypt" only because his own pictures (memories)are mashed with some other guy's. And this can be a big problem to him and he can end up running around telling everybody, who in turn, ends up running around themselves saying, "I ruled Egypt". And that gives the hole subject a bad name. Later in auditing our first victum can end up wasting time pulling all this apart only to find out that he saw the Pharaoh for only a moment and on only on 1 occasion. But for something so simple it can cause alot of trouble! Scientologiests higher up (in lvls) can work it out much easier but there are other problems that can effect them too. So we all stear clear of that.

There was more but I think this is enough. Hope it helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.95.117 (talk • contribs) 19:04, January 6, 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, but with the usual problems. It's not citable or easily verifiable, and he could be telling the truth as he knows it, but unless he's done the levels OT III and above or perhaps the year-long Saint Hill Special Briefing Course for Class VI auditors (with the Dukes of the Auditor Elite) and covered Between Lives Implants, he won't have encountered the material yet. AndroidCat 19:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree. You say he is "half way thru the lvls" but then you seem to refer to the entire Bridge as "lvls" so there is no way for us to know his "case level". Perhaps you could ask him and let us know. Regarding the dates; I disagree with him. "Date" and "locate" are important concepts in Scientology and if LRH said "76 trillion years ago" then he meant just that. Regarding the "fact" that the universe is only 13 billion years old, well we can play with that concept; who says that 50 years from now science won't say the universe is 13 trillion years old or whatever. Who says that LRH was referring to this universe. The concept of "years" itself is relative to this tiny solar system and this tiny planet. I know that when I "date" an incident in session I say something that "feels right" and who cares how old scientists today say the planet or universe is. The whole point of dating something is to help get some past incident that is affecting you in present time to "blow" (go away) and when it blows you feel better and have some realization about life or perhaps some gained (regained) ability. Who cares if the date is "right". Who cares if the incident "really happened". The only important reality is that you feel better and are more capable and that is what Scientology is all about and is pretty much all Scientology is about. --Justanother 15:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Italics

Just passing through, and thought I would just mention that the review linked at the top of the page lists many problems, the italicized quotes among them. I'm going to go through and eliminate these, since they're an eyesore, but I've no interest in long-term editing of this article. As a suggestion to the interested parties, perhaps you should start with the things that everyone can agree on: there are no ethics about italics. NPOV can wait until after the article's other problems have been addressed. Cheers, Archaeo 23:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, never mind. Quotation marks are used too frequently throughout the article as scare quotes or to set off jargon. It's impossible to tell what's actually being quoted from text between quotation marks to make it seem sillier. Someone much more familiar with this material needs to handle this. I'm done passing through; I'm going to pass out. Archaeo 00:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

is this a joke

honestly, is this actually real? I'm sorry but some vanadalism seems more realistic than this. I just want to make sure that everything is sourced properly. Rugz 01:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"Space opera" used outside of Scientology

Here is the opening sentence of the WP article Space opera: "Space opera is a subgenre of speculative fiction or science fiction that emphasizes romantic adventure, and larger-than-life characters often set against vast exotic settings." Should this information be included in this article? As it is "space opera" outside of Scientology is just said to be a term related to science fiction. Thanks. Steve Dufour 12:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

mostly incidental

Scientologists are not attempting to be deceitful. Space opera citations really are mostly incidental. The main focus of scientology is given in the title of a hubbard book; namely...The Creation of Human Ability.

Put 2+2 together, here. Maby 100 pages, out ovf volumes, on space opera. Yet hubbard emphasises pragmatism as the emphasis of scientology over and over. It's a matter of comparative volume. Scientologists spend hours apon hours learning and practicing auditing. The sole purpose of a class 4 org is to produce class 4 auditers. The tech is the point. The origonal Title of History of Man was What to Audit, to emphasise the relation of past lives to auditing.

Scientology is not the only religion to have past lives. There is a book supposedly by Buddha, called Jakkata, or Birth Stories, that was something of a best seller in the ancient world. It relates the supposed past lives of Guatama Buddha. So, even sensationalism of past live incidents is not new, but all spiritual ideas must have sounded strange when they were new.

That having been sayd. Hubbard was simply wrong about some stuff, and I'm not sure why he even included alot of stuff. Theres really not much that can be sayd, becouse inside a social mileu, really is difficult to relate to outsiders. I try, but citing refs will be difficult. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaddeus Slamp (talk • contribs) 05:27, April 3, 2007 (GMT).

Moving up (way up) from the Class 4 orgs, what about the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, for the "Dukes of the Auditor Elite" Class VI auditors with the Between Lives Implants lecture? AndroidCat 14:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What about it, indeed? I think I know what your driving @, but perhaps you should think about such (what your driving @). Meanwhile, go ahead and tell me. I might be wrong in my guess.Thaddeus Slamp 16:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Space_opera_in_Scientology/Archive_1&oldid=1137196804"