I agree with Carcha. I wondered also why Mike let Phillip spew like he did since there are other sites that cater to that viewpoint.

Mike,

Honestly I never believed any of those hagiographies.

They seemed over hyped to me.

At one time there was a short brief SOED that was the only officially approved “Biography” and one that was published as a PAB that was on MSH’s HQS course.

Those are the only ones I ever gave any credence to.

Especially nothing by Dan Sherman.

Personally I think if you poured water on the guy he’d sprout shoots and leaves 😉

I would have been more interested in what Fletcher Prouty would have had to say than anything by Sherman.

As far as I’m concerned he missed his calling as a romance novelist.

Thanks. I am well aware there are potentially inaccuracies. I am certain he didnt get it all right, and I think the church hagiography (a lot of which came from LRH and began at the time of the “Source Missions” fired out from the Apollo in 1973) basically optermed him. He wanted to prove it was wrong (and it was in a lot of instances). It’s the same thing that happened with Tommy Davis and Larry Wright.

Mike,

Read much of it actually when it was first published and available at Chatterton’s Book Store on Vermont.

Problem I found with Miller was that he tends to sensationalize.

For instance his description of Babalon Working is according to John Carter author of “Sex and Rockets”:

http://feralhouse.com/sex-and-rockets/

Then there is his questionable ability as a historical scholar according to Hayden Peaks on another book of his entitled “Code Name: Tricycle”:

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol49no1/html_files/bookshelf_10.html

Also Miller never bothers to find out why CIA was so interested in him. A point I take on a blog post of my own:

http://spyontology.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/hubbard-the-man-who-may-have-known-too-much/

which also includes quotes from Miller’s book and from Fletcher Prouty’s letter.

Then of course there is Margaret Lakes research on Ron’s war record which Miller obviously didn’t pursue seeming to be happy with what have been Ron’s legend instead:

http://scientologymyths.com/hubbardww2.htm

All I’m saying is by all means read Miller’s book if you wish but be aware that there may be possible inaccuracies.

Robin — I am ending this here.

I don’t want to have to keep reading the back and forth about this which is not a topic I want to address. This will end it. If I approve you reply I can almost write the response and then your reply and then his/her response. And I don’t think it is appropriate here or anywhere to throw sexual orientation into the mix. I don’t agree with that and consider it of the ad hominem ilk.

Just curious, have you actually read Miller’s biography?

I had not, but I am doing so now. I am on chapter 4 and so far I don’t find it a hit piece or hatchet job at all. I think he did some pretty amazing research into the early life of LRH and juxtaposed with the statements put out by the church at the time, he is far more accurate and believable than the hype the church was peddling. I am only up to the beginning of the pulps era and his marriage with Polly and Nibs and Katie. I find it to be quite interesting and it holds together far better than the hagiography that has been pushed by the church. And it’s really not unkind, rather than making him into some sort of miracle child who was reading “the classics” at 2 and taming wild broncs on his grandfather’s ranch and then stowing away on boats to China and wandering the far reaches of the country alone doing “sociological research” at a preposterous age, he really gives the picture of a precocious kid who was a bit of mischief and given to turning everything in his life into an adventure and a story.

I makes sense. And it squares far better with someone who’s life was a wreck at the end of the war, when he was desperate to find answers and came up with Dianetics.

I knew LRH. I sat and talked with him for hours. The most fascinating, larger-than-life person I have ever met. Without a shadow of a doubt. Brilliant. Complicated. Compassionate. Tough. Harsh even. But someone I shall always consider worthy of defending. But the defense of “everything he did and said is true” is untenable. It just is not true. He told stories about everything, including his life. He lied about things that were unflattering. Of that there is no question.

I think you should actually read the biography and see what you conclude then.

Hey you’re welcome Cotch.

Many critics from what I’ve seen try to discredit or character assassinate the messenger as doing so will invalidate the technology.

A wrong target to be sure.

That said.

I personally have considered Ron a friend and I always thought it was a good thing to defend a friend.

Also I believe in the presumption of innocence and the ability of anyone charged with a crime to be allowed to defend themselves by confronting their accusers.

Funny how many of these so called “biographies” or more accurately hit pieces or hatchet were written after the Ol’man was dead or had moved on.

Unfortunately libel and slander laws do not apply to the deceased. Thus allowing various ghouls like Miller for example to desecrate the dead.

Thanks Brian,

For injecting a little sanity into this discussion.

Peace bro.

LR

Fascinating, Mike.

You will find yourself having to repeat yourself. But you have a lot of valuable information as a first hand participant in a lot of the things that were hidden to outsiders, and even to public and other staff.

Your first hand information is vital to get out to people so that they have the data necessary to make informed decisions about Scientology.

Thanks.

Alanzo

Joe, I was probably in around the same time range as you. I also had significant wins both as PC and auditor. I would not invalidate those for myself or anyone else.

My assessment over the years has led me conclude that Scientology is a very intricate, complex, and often workable means of triggering changes in states of awareness, self-responsibility, and self-reflection (cognitions and perceptual changes).

However, the organization of Scientology seems profoundly disabled in any ability to attain new awareness, self-responsibility, or self-reflection. (I cannot speak from personal experience to the OT levels, only up to clear.)

And it seems equally arrogant in its refusal to acknowledge the “wog” sources of many of Hubbard’s techniques and insights.

As someone who is research and objective-reality minded, I have to continually ask myself tough questions like: Why does it work when it does? Are there alternate explanations? How do we account for other religions or applied philosophies whose followers are equally convinced that their belief systems work? How do we study and verify (or not) the claimed abilities that are outcomes of states — especially clear and the higher OT levels? If those states are true, and if the technology does work for the reasons it is believed to work, why would Scientology have the slightest qualm about opening up to broad and wide scientific research? Wouldn’t proving the efficacy be the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics?

I think Hubbard was a deeply flawed and troubled man who was possibly both paranoid and schizophrenic. However! That does not mean all he said was false (though it rightly makes people wary and suspicious). On the contrary, there is actually some correlation between leadership and madness and genius. (See for example this book that studies some of the connections: http://www.amazon.com/First-Rate-Madness-Uncovering-Between-Leadership/dp/0143121332.)

I do not think anyone should feel they have to defend against challenges to Hubbard, the Church, personal gains, or the Tech. In the end, they will stand on their own merits or not. Right now the Church and all it includes are being pounded in the hot forge of increased public scrutiny and the revelations of persons formerly in. The Church will either change and evolve and become more of what it truly could be, or it will become a smaller and smaller fringe group until it drops into history. It really is the Church’s choice as to survival of the organization. The Church will either open itself up to objective research or not — and in the latter case, it will forever forfeit any claim to science and simply become the latest religion to hit Earth (well, actually they pop up regularly).