Aquamarine – if the Co$ goes down so go the assets, due to the laws on dissolution of non-profit, tax exempt organisations. Thus DM’s best interest is to maintain the appearance of church operation/expansion. Other options of emptying out the till would be a lot less legally defendable than even the current state of affairs.

To Chuck,

This is an interesting subject although off thread (my questions). I have often wondered about the boundaries on openly talking about “space opera” and when it is considered actually real, or problematic as you say (an individual’s case state), or when it becomes J&D (joking and degrading) and is used to entertain people with, like I thought Carla might being doing. Not that I ever thought Carla would J&D anything Scn, she seems pretty hard-core to me. Yet her story is so bizarre and would also require her husband to validate it. It’s not entirely subjective, so I didn’t know what to make of it in a fair sense.

It can be a little confusing because people can and do make fun of space opera topics and yet it is part of the belief system in Scn. I have also seen fellow students get in trouble or told off when they cracked jokes about it in the orgs.

LRH also talked about space opera in his writings and lectures, like on OT levels (confidential) but also in some lectures too. Then you hear individual public talk about being on other planets, Marcab society, and such. Implanting is space opera. The SO recruiters also talk space opera to the recruits re: The Loyal Officers story and Mars implanting station. There are lots of examples when you look at it. One might say that I don’t understand the definition of space opera but I think any activity not happening in real time on planet Earth with yourself, others or “beings” pretty much falls into the category of space opera. In a nutshell.

Your explanation is a good one and I appreciate you taking the time to answer me and share your understanding. Thank you.

I hear ya. I have had some experience in these areas since I’ve been out in the world. You are 100% correct. But I’m just going to keep stirring the kitty box every so often anyway.

Scientologists who have been around the OT Scientologists who give their OT wins (supernatural testimonials) take her as Scientology value, which means YES, they do believe this happened, and that they did do as Carla said, meaning she and her husband went out of their bodies up to that “star” and did what she said they did.

The audience is a group of Scientologists mostly, there are many other videos of other speech giving members of that club, and Carla’s is more slanted like an “OT win” that is pretty wild, but they and the Scientologists would take it serliously.

Now, in fairness, in Scientology history, there is a whole sub history of Scientologists who give over the top OT wins, and as respectful average Scientologists, you wouldn’t invalidate a fellow Scientologist giving a testimonial that you know that that person’s Case Supervisor would think is even delusional.

Meaning tech wise, in the church, the far-fetched wins (testimonials) that are obviously fantasy and untrue, then we politiely let our Scientologist utter their inflated delusional nonsense, but we know it cannot be true.

Now, the limits of supernatural testimonials is a silent tacit zone. Hubbard says let the person have their wins, and if they are deluded about this or that, in time, their case will sort out and they will realize their own delusion.

So technically, the highest Case Supervisors in Scientology would let Carla “have her win”, but they would NOT comment that Carla is delusional, and let Carla eventually get to that realization about this incident, which Carla obviously thinks was real. They would accept Hubbard’s technical rule to let the patient (preclear is Hubbard’s word for that role) come to the conclusion that this or that incident in their lives was NOT real.

That attitude is also known and is how it is, at the highest technically trained members of the movement, they will let their fellows have their delusional testimonials, but they won’t necessarily believe the wild testimonials, and Carla apprears very much to be a problamatic wife of the Scientology lead attorney Kendrick Moxon!

Carla’s not really risen to the point case wise to tell fully what of her experiences, this one in particular, were in fact NOT real, so that’s why she’s a problematic member.

There are others. THere are all gradients of Scientologists believing in supernatural things, many in Office of Special Affairs are conspiracy minded types.

The Scientology supernatural OT stuff allows for this problem in their membership.

So to answer your question, the members in Scientology who are more normal realistic types, would think Carla was being delusional, but they’d also know that was the state of her case, and that real OT supernatural stuff does and will happen and be more real later, for Carla, as Carla’s own case gets “handled” down the road!

Scientology still thinks the OT supernatural stuff is still out there to be gotten and attained! Like simple out of the body travel at will by everyone who go up the Hubbard Bridge to Total Freedom (even though no one has done so yet)!

Greta — banking laws are not the problem. The IRS is very limited in what it can do with churches — there is even a “Church Audit Procedures Act”, a law passed by Congress to limit IRS authority over churches.

That’s not how things work inside the IRS. The church got the whales to pay to the IRS what they were illegally hiding, years ago. And, the church keeps the pressure up now for members to pay Fed taxes. The IRS is VERY happy with DM being one of their field enforcers.

I cling to a small footnote (19) from the recent response to Monique’s Anti-SLAPP case: “….In fact, the Ninth Circuit has noted that, given the opportunity to rule on the IRS’s deal with Scientology, it would likely invalidate the tax-exemption deal.“

Mike,
Things have changed recently. There are new banking laws since July 15th 2014 allowing the IRS
far more control over banks outside of the US, that is as far as US citizens are concerned.
This is to curb the flight of the crumbling $ out of US into other safer, more stable currencies.
Greta

Paul Burkhart, where have you been? Finbrain wants to know?

Pepper and Cindy,

Yeah, the Sea Org has their own Emma Lazarus thing going: “Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses, yearning to clear the planet…”