Exactly. Thank you for the term that escaped me, i.e, a “wrong indication”, ENFORCED, as you say, every single day!

I mean, why not just embrace life as a slave as it was on an anti-bellum plantation, and have “Massa” appoint you your post, for his financial convenience, and transfer you (sell you) elsewhere when it suits his whim or convenience, and…oh, wait…that’s already being done…that’s life in the Sea Org already.

@aquamarine.

Well-said.

If you’re staff and told your purpose in life was to be CF I/C because that’s your post, that would function as an enforced “wrong indication” that would be restimulated Every. Single. Day!

Loathe is not a strong enough word.

As far as the KTL/LOC courses go, I benefited from doing them,‘particularly the grammar section of KTL.

I did not like the “wrong indication” that I was functionally illiterate, delivered by Hubbard himself to everyone who enrolled in the course, but hey, this is what it looks like when you have the structure of something like The Bridge—essentially cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all assembly line enlightenment.

@John Doe,

Wow, interesting intel indeed with regard to how LOC was applied for you, a public and how it was applied to your twin, a Class V org staff member. Just wow…heartbreaking. No WONDER so many Scientologists seem to LOATHE that course. Like you, I was a public, and allowed to work out my own goals and purposes and keep them! I personally loved that course! And it helped me, and it continues to help me…wow…but if I had been staff or Sea Org, these would have been superimposed on me…I’m shuddering, just thinking of what that must have felt like, to those students. Beyond horrible, to be TOLD what your goal was and MADE WRONG or “handled” or told that I had MUs etc., etc., if the goal I found for myself was not what the Church of Scientology wanted and needed it to be right then! OMG, I’m sorry to rant, but this is just – well, there are no words. I would loathe and despise this course too if it had been delivered like that to me. Talk about OUT Tech! From now on, any one who shares that they hated this course I’m going to politely ask if when they took it they were staff or Sea Org.

Now, as regards your overall point with furnished examples of how easily manipulate-able the Code of Honor is, I can hardly disagree. It is open to VERY wide interpretation and as such CAN be dangerous, extremely dangerous. Now, that said, I like it but I don’t dream that it can be or should be applied “always” or “Never”. I look at its usage as a “luxury” use. In other words, it is something to aspire to when it makes sense! The Code of Honor CANNOT be applied across the board in every instance – no way! The examples you gave of its inapplicability were spot on. And there would be so many more such instances. Here’s what I think; the bottom line on its application MUST BE totally, but totally up to the INDIVIDUAL. How/if/when/where/why it is applied or not – these have to be decisions each individual makes for himself or herself.

To further illustrate my point, take what it says in the Bible in the New Testament about how, if someone tries to steal your hat or something, you let him, and you give him your coat too (I’m hazy on the wording of this but you get the idea). Ok, now, do you know ANY Christian who would do this?

Neither do I. But maybe SOME time, in SOME instance, he or she might behave along this line. It might happen a few times in a Christian’s life when this would be purely applied. But on an “always” basis it would be impossible to apply and ridiculous to even try.

Same way with the Christian “You are your brother’s keeper”. Frankly, I don’t know ANY Christian who actually APPLIES this datum in their lives. Quite the contrary as a matter of fact. From my observations, the more “Christian” they are, the more they complain about having to support (with their taxes) people they feel don’t deserve it, etc., But anyway, point being, at SOME point in their lives, they apply this datum in its pure unselfishness – I’m sure at some point just about everyone alive does SOMEthing for others in a purely unselfish unrewarded way.

My point being, its a luxury usage of the Christian “tech”.

Hubbard clearly intended followers to withdraw allegiance granted to people and groups besides Scientology, including of course “disconnecting” from them – so once again the “code” turns out to be intended to serve only him and his organization, and to be subject to means of interpretation to justify those ends.

Aquamarine, regarding LOC and determining one’s life purpose:

I’ve heard from several sources that if you were on staff in the SO, the only acceptable answer to your life purpose was your current post.

I was twinned with a staff member from LA Org. He really wanted to be an auditor, and all his product clearing and clay demos had that as the focus.

Turns out that after we’d completed, because he was a successful reg, he had to redo that section of the course to align with his reg position.

Meanwhile, I get to affirm my purpose as an artist and creative, and went off merrily on my way.

Regarding the code of honor:

Respectfully, I disagree that any such construction that can easily be so manipulated away from what the apparent meaning is, is something to be distrusted at best.

Plus, Hubbard had this fondness for hyperbole with “always” and “never” statements. 9 out of the 14 points of the Code of Honor begin with “never”.

Example: “The ONLY reason a person give up a study is that he or she has gone past a word they didn’t understand.”

Okaaaayy, what if the person discovers the subject is not worth studying?

But more salient to the code of honor, “Never withdraw Allegiance once granted.”

What if that group or individual turns out to be toxic or not what they represented themselves to be?

The problem with the Code of Honor is not the code per se but how the Church of Scientology applies it to suit what’s good and/or convenient and/or expedient for THEM at any given time.
The Code of Honor as its written is a personal ethical code, and I believe, healthy and sane. But Co$ doesn’t permit it to be applied that way. Essentially Co$ has turned it into a highly restrictive, self-serving and suppressive moral code. Theoretically the Code of Honor, is there to serve the individual member; in practice though, it only serves the Church of Scientology – it is ENFORCED BY THE ORGANIZATION to serve the organization’S interests at any given time only, and as such it becomes suppressive, a highly suppressive moral code.

The Roman Catholic Church did something similar hundreds of years back. What did the burning of heretics have to do with anything Jesus Christ advised as the Christian way to operate in life? I’m not picking on the Church of Rome when it comes to ( long ago stopped) suppressive codes of behavior. The Protestants were no slouches in that department. The examples are numerous with regard to how organized religions have taken what were in the beginning helpful humane philosophies and turned them into self-serving punishments for their members who did not adhere – evil, unjust and highly severe policies which also thru fear reinforced their power, and made them lots of money.

I’ve read that C0$ stopped delivering LOC because one of the exercises on that course is to determine one’s true goals and purposes in life. I did LOC and believe me my goals and purposes did not include being on staff of in the Sea Org! Now, I was a public; I was never on staff. But I’m wondering if all the Cl V staff and Sea Org members who did that course found out on that course that being on staff or in the SO were not conducive was not their true purpose!

I hear you on everything, but just an FYI to you that past lives and endless future lifetimes as a concept is not a concept owned by Scientology. Hubbard co-opted this concept of reincarnation from other (ancient) beliefs! No one knows what happens after we die. I personally believe that we come back in another body. It actually makes sense to me. Don’t the flowers and the leaves come back, lifetime after lifetime? Not the SAME flower, not the SAME leaf, no, but rebirth, after their kind? Makes sense to me that we come back also. But can I prove it? Of course not. Then again, who can? And who is to say conclusively that we can never “reconnect” again with loved ones. You’ve heard the saying, “Love is eternal”, right? I believe in that too. I believe that its true, somehow. I don’t really understand how – I couldn’t say how this is true. I just feel it, pretty strongly, actually. Don’t be depressed, RVW. You don’t need permission from the Church of Scientology to believe in past lives and that we are in our essence immortal beings who inhabit bodies and live lifetime after lifetime! And yes, verbal communication is shut off when someone dies, but who is to say that verbal communication is the only communication? Life as we know it is one huge overall miracles containing trillions of miracles. Who designed all of this? Something, some force, some power…makes sense to me that there is so much we don’t know 🙂 And that its good, and beautifiul

when I woke up from scientology, I lost my eternity.

I lost the comfort of my nearly endless past, full of lifetimes of games.

I lost the certitude that I had endless lifetimes ahead of me, full of possibilities to reconnect with lost loved ones.

It had all been a construct, a reality based wholly in scn.

…..

and then of course, one loses any hope of reconnecting with the dead.

It’s awful.

Sometimes, madness isn’t a choice.

Such a lofty, inspirational name for what is to follow.

Yet, when one reads it again, after having removed the scientology blinders and having read Hubbard’s real life story, one can easily see how self-serving this is.

Self-serving to L Ron Hubbard.

“Never withdraw allegiance once granted.”

“Never desert a group to which you owe your support.”

“Never fear to hurt another in a just Cause.”

These are the obvious ones. There are others that can go either way—harmful or helpful, such as “Do not give or receive communication unless you yourself desire it.”

Hubbard peppered the remaining list with trite aphorisms to camouflage his manipulative intent, such as “Be true to your own goals.”

Seeing this “Code of Honor” in a new light was one of those moments on my journey out of Scientology when I realized that whatever “good tech” there might be that was worth saving, it was in a field surrounded with booby trap mines.

This Code of Honor is like a piece of Swiss cheese with more holes than cheese.

Alcoboy, I think the Code is a piece of LRH situational ethics, that DM has just exploited in the sort of way intended – as with ‘never fear to hurt another in a just cause’, Scientology (and by extension, its leader and their interests) always being a just cause.

L. Ron “I will personally smash their teeth in” Hubbard didn’t follow it, either, and directed subordinates and operatives such the GO to bend and break it as well, clearly setting the precedent for CofS leadership and management.