Joseph Smith & L. Ron Hubbard: Similarities?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jim1130
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“I understand Scientology is particularly litigious when confronted by those who would speak against it.”
Not entirely true. The Church has been to court to protect the illegal distribution of copyright and trade secret material, as any organization would do to protect it’s intellectual property rights. There is no thought here against one who disagrees with Scientology. I’ve had a few disagreements myself, and have never been treated with anything but respect. Below is a link to the Scientology FAQ concerning this subject.

Why has Scientology been to court a lot of times?
 
“They both taught a tightly controlled “utopian” society that is persecuted by the unbeleivers.”
Again, I can’t speak on behalf of LDS, but this is certainly NOT a part of the Scientology religion.
 
“They both a taught a progression whereby if you are faithful (which in both cases results in you giving a lot of money and labor to the church) you can reach your “full potential” of becoming a “divine” being.”
This is a bit of a distortion of the truth. For starters, Scientology requires no faith of any kind. Scientologist are not prevented from having any faith they desire, but neither is it required to be a Scientologist. The technology of Scientology offers the individual a pathway to greater spiritual freedom and awareness, but he is never expected to take anything on faith. Rather he is encouraged to look for himself, and see if it’s true.

Further, the Church does priovide what Scientologists consider to be an invaluable service, and we have no problem donating to our Church in exchange for that service. One’s “labor” contribution is entirely the decision of the individual, and is not required to participate in Scientology services.

Finally, Scientology does have a concept of God. That we can become God or divine is often used to discourage others from looking into Scientology, particularly those with Judeo-Christian backgrounds, but it isn’t a part of Scientology teachings. Below is another link on this suibject.

Does Scientology have a concept of God?
 
"Both wrote colorful science fiction. Both are very careful in what they allow potentail members to learn and both have sued to keep their manuals unpublished.
L. Ron hubbard did write sci-fi, but this again is used by detractors to steer people away from looking for themselves. In truth, LRH wrote in many genres. Here’s a link covering this subject.

Wasn’t L. Ron Hubbard mostly a science fiction writer?

As covered earlier, The Church has never sued to prevent it’s materials from being published, it has been to court to prevent it’s materials from being illegally distributed, as any organization would do. Further, while the bulk of Scientology marterials are openly available to anyone, there are a very small number of writings which are only shown to Scientologists who have demonstrated a very high degree of understanding and ethics towards spiritual matters. Below is another link covering this subject.

Why does the Church keep certain of its scriptures confidential?
 
“This is downright SCARY!”
And it is intended to be. Unfortunately, it is also a lie. Whatever association Hubbard had with Crowley doesn’t show up in Scientology scriptures. This is simply another tactic used to scare people into an unreasonable fear of Scientology.
 
“I wonder if the sea org folks see it that way.”
Best way to find out is to ask. My only request is to refrain from speculating.
 
so you are relatively new to scientology and still struggling with you engrams?
 
Chris LaRock:
It was creepy! The documentory was talking about how wide an influence Crowley’s occultism had on culture when they played that audio.
Click to expand...
A quick look around reminds me that Hubbard was associated with the LA chapter of the Ordo Templi Orientis, in the 40s. Crowley was the head of the order, in England, for a while. Whether Hubbard actually knew Crowley seems problematic. Certainly, he was aware of his work.

GKC
 
I don’t know, but there seems to be similarities between Joseph Smith and Felix Manalo, the founder of the Iglesia ni Cristo here in the Philippines as well. I often compare their beliefs, and they almost seem to be alike. I am not sure though if Joseph Smith ever considered himself an angel the way INC members consider Felix Manalo to be one though.
 
I wouldn’t recommend that site. It comtains a lot of misinformation.
 
as you are still in the process of getting clear you are not privy to very much tech so I hardly think you are sufficiently informed to tell us what is or isn’t misinformation regarding elron’s fabricated “church”.
 
Here are some more websites to check out:
http://www.scientology-kills.org/images/shim.gif
Code: 
                   [Why are we dead, Scientology? ](http://whyaretheydead.net/)
Arnie Lerma’s Site
Code: 
                                                                                     [Operation Clambake ](http://www.xenu.net/)

                                                             [If your loved one is in a cult](http://www.freedomofmind.com/)

                                                             [www.holysmoke.org ](http://www.holysmoke.org/theta.htm)

                                                             [Cult News from Rick Ross ](http://www.cultnews.com/)

                                                             [The Scandal of Scientology](http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/%7Edst/Krasel/cooper/)
This page has a TON of links
 
“as you are still in the process of getting clear you are not privy to very much tech”
For starters, I would ask how far up the Bridge you have progressed, otherwise this same could apply to you.

But even so, the bulk of the technology is available to all. It’s not that hard for someone who’s informed to see what the misinformation is. Having been a Scientologist for a number of years, having been processed and trained, having been a staff member and worked with the staff of several Churches, I do consider myself pretty well informed. Looking at all the misinformation on this forum, it’s pretty evident that most others posting here are not.

Having said that, and having looked at a LOT of critical cites, all those listed here by others have a very large amout of misinformation, and so don’t represent the reality of the religion at all. They’re not a very good source of information.
 
40.png
Theta:
Having been a Scientologist for a number of years, having been processed and trained, having been a staff member and worked with the staff of several Churches, I do consider myself pretty well informed.
Click to expand...
Theta,
I have no doubt that you are a genuinely nice person. It is not you, or your sincerity, that concerns me. It is the many verified (through court cases, etc) sources which establish a clear pattern of purposeful misinformation and secrecy, dating back to the very founding of L Ron Hubbard’s venture.

I quote the following that was posted by an Ex-CoS member on another website (what started the discussion was an article discussing Kierkegaard and his theory that Christianity is logically impossible and therefore the only true religion as it requires true faith. The writer applies this same standard to CoS members.)
GoNuclear:
That quoted piece flies in the face of why many of us chose Swientology in the first place … that it offered a path of knowledge vs. a path of faith. Once on that road, believing that that road was the right road, from time to time when we would encounter what appeared to be totally irrational from the fearless leader/guru LRH, we would 1)go into catatonic brainfart, 2)go into denial and ignore it, 3)alibi it off as the product of misunderstood words, or, if we called anyone’s attention to it, we would get the 4)“its true if its true for you” nonexplanation lecture, but, we would stay, regardless.

We left when 1)the abuse level was too severe or 2)the money ran out or 3)we were separated out by circumstance and never quite made it back before being away long enough to see thru it all, which, in many cases, was the result of Bent Corydon’s book. I know it was for me … out in late 81, but had occaisional thoughts of going back until I read Corydon’s book in 1989.

Pete
Click to expand...
 
So far the discussion has maintained a general sense of civility. So to avoid stepping over the ‘ever-nearing’ line, I wish to remind everyone of our non-Catholic religion policy:

Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the doctrines and dogmas of both Catholicism and non-Catholic religions. However, all discourse must be civil and charitable.

Guidelines
For both Catholic and non-Catholic posters:
  • It is acceptable to question the doctrine or dogma of another’s faith
  • It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs
  • Bringing up historical controversies peculiar to a particular religion should be done cautiously*
  • It is acceptable to discuss the effect the incident had on current policy or practice.
  • It is acceptable to seek the truth vs. commonly-held beliefs or conventional wisdom about actual events.
  • It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they “prove” a particular religion is false.
  • Expecting members of any Church to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism of bodies that have broken with it is a technique that has no merit and can’t be defended.
Theta, and other Scientologists have come here to answer questions. And though there may not be agreement between some, civility should always trump winning or loosing.

Thanks to all who have made this thread successful. Please continue…

Rachel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top