Ah, but that’s just a traditional way for the Damnation Navy’s slaves to show the religiousness!

Enter following into a search engine and be sad (well, I was sad): blue asbestos Lawrence Woodcraft

+ 100

Pepper, I think you’re on to something here. Jillian explains the “outside influence” idea in a video or in writing at the Tony O site. And they labelled her dad as her “outside influence” and said it in a derrogatory way. Once when he phoned for her, someone gave her the message, “your outside influence called for you.” (meaning her dad had called her). So I think you’re right that is why she didn’t go uplines. Thank God! It would have been much harder to escape from Int and she would have been damaged psychologically much more from being closer to DM.

Excellent post, Richardgrant.

Margaret –

I certainly swell up with pride reading you say that I “hit one out of the park”!

Thank you.

I wasn’t in Scientology in the 60’s or 70’s, so I don’t personally know about what public thought of policies, and which ones applied to them. But there is a guy named Robert Kaufmann who was in Scientology at that time, at Saint Hill where Ron was writing most of those policies, and he writes about their effect on public and staff at the time.

When Ron first issued the ethics tech, some of the penalties for liability and below were pretty draconian – having to wear dirty grey armbands, etc. Kaufmann describes what it was like to be a public back then.

The whole book is here for free:

http://www.xenu.net/archive/books/isd/isd.htm

I think this is one of the best books ever written on Scientology.

Alanzo

Seen it twice!

It’s superior. How FAR superior of a movie it is will probably require a few double blind studies.

Speaking of Boxers and Thetans and Bodies, there is a spanish/english/french film starring Penelope Cruz (doing her best Tom Cruise imitation) in a 2001 EuroMovie called “Don’t Tempt Me”.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0284491/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_29

One of my favorites, as well.

Alanzo

Alanzo …. forget Buck Henry please my friend (in this regard) … I think you can still go to youtube and download the original 1939 version of “Here Comes Mr. Jordan” starring Robert Montgomery and Claude Rains …. far far superior to the remake. I await your comments after you view it. For those of you who have not seen it, it is indeed foremost a movie about thetans and bodies …. and some romance, murder, boxing and saxophone playing thrown in as well.

Alanzo wrote: “So which of the pages and writings did LRH really mean?
The rights-recognizing Creed on the front wall of ever org and mission?
Or the Fair-Gaming Suppressive Acts HCOPL?”

As on-the-money that Roy’s response above was, you hit it out of the park with this observation Alanzo. This is the exact conundrum that Scientologists need to confront, if there is going to be an honest and thorough reform.

I would further add to your observation though, Alanzo, that policy at one time was supposed to just apply to staff members and not necessarily the public (i.e. the general membership). At some unknown time (but clearly in full force by the 1980s), that demarcation point — where public were in one category with regard to Church policies, and staff were in another — was lost.

My view is that there was a sort of built-in “oh, everyone knows that doesn’t apply” to the general public through the 1960s and 70s, when the green (policy) volumes were not widely distributed and available. There were a number of these important “everyone knows” things that got lost when the old regime was replaced with the new one in the 1980s. Add in the loss of the balance that Mary Sue often added to the equation, the hyper-fundamentalism and psychopathy of Miscavige, and you have a perfect setup for the mess we have today.

And by the way, I’m not saying that certain policies by LRH should be continued and supported, just because they were possibly meant only for staff (and clearly by the 80s, I don’t think they were, even in LRH’s mind). I’m in favor of radically reforming the whole “Suppressive Person” witch hunt — and their mechanisms in policy — that exist in the RCS. And a number of other areas too, such as the hyper-focus on stats which also has seeds found in policy, sec checks, et al.

Any real reform must be honest about the whole thing: including not only retiring certain LRH policies, but creating other policies which don’t allow the same situations to recur. Unfortunately, I don’t know or expect this type of reform to ever take place, but this is what would be needed for any real reform to be meaningful and successful, imho.

Pepper — I just checked the spam file and there were 5 comments from you in there. No idea why. I have just posted them all, and hopefully by “unspamming” you it won’t happen again. Perhaps you could try another test now. I will check the spam folder in a while and see if you have been plonked into there again. Sorry.