Introduction

I’ve been a Scientologist since the mid ’80s. I firmly believe in the applied religious philosophy of Scientology as founded by L. Ron Hubbard. I say “as founded” because what’s being practiced today in official Churches has deviated greatly from what LRH laid out.

I’ve been ‘off lines’ for many years which makes ‘flying under the radar’ pretty easy. It also protected me from much of the damage that’s been done in my Church for the last decade or so, but I’ve seen much over those years that greatly concerned me. I’m highly admin trained (FEBC) and have seen serious outnesses, but always held out hope Management could be corrected. That changed when I read Debbie Cook’s email (living in the shadow of Flag, it was published in our local paper). I didn’t know Debbie personally, but I certainly knew of her, as did many Scientologists. Her tale was the proverbial last straw for me.

My husband has been more vocal than I. He started his blog Martin Luther earlier this year and it offers excellent posts. I highly recommend it. I finally chose to do my own as there are things I want to say as well. Sadly, we both need to remain under the radar for now. To come out publicly could cost us financially, something we can’t afford right now. I look forward to the day when we can come out from the shadows.

While some of my posts will cover issues of the past — both things I’ve witnessed, and things others have discussed — my main focus is on the future. As we witness the slow destruction of the Church of Scientology International, I want to do what I can to help ensure LRH’s Scientology is available to all from this point forward.

Update: 11/07/12

Out of the Closet

For quite some time now, my husband and I have remained under the radar. Our business is our only source of income, and we had several customers that are/were Scientologists. We were concerned that coming out with our independence would cause those customers to leave us. With the economy the way it’s been these past few years, we thought we couldn’t afford to lose anyone. But at some point, you’ve got to evaluate the cost of keeping such a thing secret. I’ve basically been running a suppress on myself, withholding how I felt about what’s been happening with the Church. This blog provided some outlet, but there was still that suppress.

After some discussion, my husband and I have decided the costs to our spiritual well being outweigh the benefits to our wallet. Sure, this decision may cost us some business, but it’s also possible that removing that suppression will actually do more good, rehab some ability, etc. So with that, allow me to fully introduce myself.

My name is Nancy Foster. I was on staff at Tampa Org back in the mid ’80s. I had rapidly risen to PES when I got talked into going to LA for the FEBC program. Our ED was already out there (she went out there shortly after I joined staff) and needed a twin. I’d only been on staff for a year at the time. Unfortunately, our ED should have never been sent there. After she completed the full training program and requesting RTC approved posting, it was determined she wasn’t qualified to be an exec at all, much less the ED. That meant that, instead of me being the D/ED (Org Officer), I was to fire back to the Org as ED, and alone. This completely violates LRH’s dictates on the FEBC program.

My Org was terribly off policy. The more policy I studied while I was in LA, the more I realized just how bad the scene was back home. After completing my training and waiting to fire, I studied the Org’s stats and Data Files. I realized the Org had a serious ethics sit (there was no HCO at all!) and a particular Who that needed removal. But things got even worse when word came down that I was to return as the ED. I had to go to CLO before I could officially take my post, and that’s when I learned just how much trouble I was going to have. It started with meeting the Snr HAS and requesting an ethics mission to help me clean things up. She told me, “I know you’re going into a hornet’s nest. There’s nothing I can do.” So I was really going it alone.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, I met with my Programs Chief and she showed me a CSW the T/ED Tampa had submitted, requesting he stay on as ED and I be his D/ED. Now let me explain something rather important here. This T/ED had been a lowly Book Store Officer before the Org’s original ED was sent to LA. While that’s not that bad, he was also a failed student (couldn’t finish Student Hat) and part-time staff. So let’s see, you’ve got a fully trained and interned FEBC who’ll be on a full-time schedule versus a failed-student, part-time staff member. And while I was only Clear, I had a higher case level to boot. Now for the kicker: Programs Chief agreed with the T/ED! Unfortunately for her, I had been Acting Status posted as ED by RTC. She didn’t hide her disappointment that she couldn’t approve the CSW.

I’ll spare you the gruesome details, but suffice it to say the Programs Chief worked with the former T/ED and other staff members behind my back to ensure I’d be removed from post. They succeeded at the earliest possible point. No B of I. No Comm Ev. I tried to stay on, but after awhile, I realized this wasn’t the game I signed up for and routed out. The Org wasn’t done with me though, hitting my husband (Paul) and me both with ridiculous ethics orders. I was told to leave the premises and to not contact any staff member or public.

I wrote it all up and, since Flag was in our virtual backyard, went to the MAA there, but nothing was ever done. Several years later, one of the terminals involved in all this called me, apologizing and explaining she was the source of the information that led to the ethics orders. The T/ED was no longer there and the Org invited me back to finally complete my leaving routing form.

Having done the whole FEBC program (OEC, FEBC with internship, Exec Status I, II, and III, plus Exec Series 40 auditing), I had a rather large freeloader debt. That ended up protecting me from the ravages to the tech that happened in the ensuing years. But we watched via the magazines and many promotion pieces that stuffed our mail box. We saw the debacle that is the Super Power project. Despite us both having freeloader debts, we were regged for Basics packages. (Anyone want one? We have an extra set.) Paul and I had many conversations about what was happening. If you follow his blog Martin Luther, you know his story, but for me, the last straw was reading Debbie Cook’s original email. So here we are on the raggedy edge… I’ll do what I can to save Scientology, as researched and mapped out by LRH. Join me?

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “Introduction

  1. You are filling a niche that has not been sufficiently exploited. I will add a link to our possiblyhelpfuladvice.com blog to send you traffic. Feel free to leave comments on our site and to suggest articles if the mood strikes.

    Good luck!

      • If you have not seen people with your point of view, may I humbly suggest you have been looking in the wrong places. 🙂

        You are very much in the main stream of ex staff and you will eventually connect up with a fairly large number of people with comparable viewpoints. Visit possiblyhelpfuladvice.com and look at the right sidebar to see links to all of the indies and COS clones and various categories that may be right like yourselves.

        Drop in and comment on a few sites and you will quickly get a feeling for thier tone levels and survival potential. Facebook has several groups that prove to be a safe venue for extended discussions also.

      • One of my bigger concerns has been the dominance of anti-policy (green-on-white) viewpoints. It’s not the policy that’s bad, it’s the non-application or misapplication of it. Behind that is often unhattedness — a rampant problem when I was on staff and one that probably only got worse over the years.

        I will check out your links and see more of what’s out there. Up until now, I mostly only read what was on Marty’s blog.

      • Marty is only one of many viewpoints out here. He is ex Sea Org and is still wearing the SO identity. There are many of us out here who were professional auditors for years.

        I spent 35 years in Scientology, ten of those as a Mission Holder, so I have an extremely pragmatic view of the workability of Policy. and I spent 20 years in the Auditing chair, some of that at AO, ASHO, CC Int and LA Day, so I know how the orgs actually work and how little straight policy is applied. I have done a fair amount of research which you are invited to review at your leisure and I have never seen Green on White working except in a slave wages environment. Green and White is based on an English Navy model, not a competitive business organization model.

        Can you imagine a software company with no techies in top management? Tech terminals are way down the org board and the ratio of non tech to tech terminals is 45 to one in most orgs. There is no way to run an organization with that much overhead burden.

        Look for yourself and don’t listen to me or to anyone else. Has any organization ever succeeded and paid living wages to its staff using Green and White? Living wages allow one to raise a family in comfortable housing with choices of lifestyle.

      • I realize Marty’s viewpoint, but what I mean is reading the comments on his blog. There are plenty of people agreeing with his view.

        I’ve heard stories of missions and Orgs flourishing, with good staff pay, but no, I’m not a fan of the unit system. As a business owner, I understand profits and wages. One of the keys you learn on the FEBC is that you have to be able to think with the data. For instance, say you wanted to use the Admin tech to help other businesses, like a coffee shop. You wouldn’t slavishly insist they give customers 5-part invoices instead of a register receipt. LRH didn’t want a bunch of robots.

        I agree it would be best to have techies in top management, but then it’s also best if top management are also FEBCs who are through their OT levels. I can’t speak about other Orgs, but our OES was also the highest tech trained person in our Org when I was there. As to the proper admin/tech ratio, the reference is LRH ED 49R, Organization Program No. 1:

        “An org may have two or less admin personnel to every tech personnel (auditor or instructor). There must never be more than two admin to one tech.”

        So if you had such out of whack admin/tech ratios, it’s just another example of an Org being off policy.

      • I didn’t have an out of whack ratio in my mission. I was referring to Flag and the Ship and AO and ASHO and etc. All have out of whack admin tech ratios, and nobody notices!

  2. Pingback: Out of the Closet | From Ashes Born

  3. Hey there Lady!

    Can I be surprised and NOT surprised at the same time?!!! Good job to both of you Nancy. I know how much of a relief I felt when I stopped mocking up caring about what they thought of me and stopped granting the posts over at the base the beingness of true Sea Org members – you know, those people who are supposed to be leading the way to Keeping Scientology Working. It was a nice little surprise in my email today to find this news. Big hug to you. lv,g

  4. As you increase your exposure to independent Scientology thinking, you will find there are many people on all sides of every question.

    It is a matter of religion vs technology. In a religion, we do not want change. If it is in the book, its true and we are heretics if we question a single word or concept.

    A technology, to be viable, must evolve and is constantly tested to see that it continues to answer real world problems. The test of a technology is does it work better than some other version of the technology, not who wrote it.

    In the field, for instance, auditors are delivering services successfully to pcs who could never get serviced by the church. They are using processes developed by LRH in the Fifties and Sixties which were later discarded.

    The most important thing, in my opinion, is that technical discussion and questioning must be open without censure. Others may differ, but I think you will find that they are differing on a religious basis, not actual facts. Religion is faith-based and Scientology was never faith-based in the Fifties, it was all about getting actual results and finding out why they were achieved.

    In the future, I feel there will be an entire spectrum of Scientology offshoots from the Sea Org version of Scientology, and Ron’s Org, to the Alan Walters version and beyond. Hopefully they will all learn to coexist.

    • Oh, I’ve already seen that there are many differing views. And I believe discussion is a good thing. But I also adhere to LRH. For example, regarding the tech from the ’50s and ’60s, LRH didn’t discard it. For instance, in HCO PL 8 May 1969, Issue IV, Out Tech, he states:

      All of Dianetics and Scientology works. Some of it works faster.”

      Or go to HCO PL 17 June 1970RB, Technical Degrades, where LRH lists as one of the HIGH CRIMES:

      “2. Adding comments to checksheets or instructions labeling any material ‘background’ or ‘not used now’ or ‘old’ or any similar action which will result in the student not knowing, using and applying the data in which he is being trained.”

      As to evolving the technology, in HCO PL 14 February 1965, Safeguarding Technology, LRH says:

      “Scientology is a workable system. This does not mean it is the best possible system or a perfect system. Remember and use that definition. Scientology is a workable system.”

      I could go on, but I think I’ll do a post on the blog regarding this instead. The point here is I don’t have a problem with others having different viewpoints. After all, we should all strive to grant beingness to others.

  5. Nancy, my name is Ron Bible i am a CLVI, SHSBC 1990. I am now solo nots completion, with deep graditude to David St Lawrence who got me there. So I write to you with high hopes for you and what your attempting to do.
    You stated you are not auditor trained. Big out point. Auditing came before green on white. As a ClVI, who has done 1/2 of OEC, i will tell you the point of view an auditor has on green is much much more different then a green on white trained has on auditor tech. The old question of which came first the chicken or the egg, well of course it was auditor tech.
    The next statement will hit a ridge in you, just move through it. Internet training and auditing is the future, as OT i have seen it as a CLVI i am certain it is very workable. Admin tech will play a part in that but like auditing tech it will need to evolve.
    I had a CLVIII tell me when I asked him what will we to for tech when LRH is gone? (that was in 1979 and he went on to become a CLXII) “Why we will create it” That for me rang true it is what the tech does it rehabs us as OT’s.
    Here is my best suggestion for you; David St Lawrence cares about exstaff it is part of his love to need and want to assist them in getting the kool-aid out of there systems, I have know him for 33 years this lifetime and many otheres. He gives a free sessions to first timers over Skype. I know Skype how can that be standard? All I can say is it works for thousands of pc and pre ot’s. Maybe it will work for you. You have nothing to lose except fixed ideas.
    I have read some of Pauls blog as well and like them he is bright. I will continue to read both blogs.

    Peace Love & Harmony

    RonBible CLVI OT VII+

    • First, well done on being a Class VI and on getting through Solo NOTs. And thanks for reading and commenting.

      As an FEBC, of course I know the auditing tech came first, but that doesn’t invalidate Admin tech. And while I’m not officially auditor trained, I do have some familiarity with red-on-white as well. For instance, I know you shouldn’t evaluate for the PC. When you said, “The next statement will hit a ridge in you, just move through it,” you realize that’s what you’re doing, right?

      Regarding auditing over the internet, you might want to read my latest post. I’m glad you found internet auditing worked for you, but if you read to the end of that post, you’ll see the dangers I point out. As to Admin tech needing to evolve, sure, to some degree (allowing for email, etc.), but the fundamentals remain valid. One of the things you learn doing the FEBC is that you have to think with the data. As I mentioned in one of my replies to David, you wouldn’t insist a coffee shop give customers 5-part invoices instead of register receipts.

      I don’t have any interest in experimenting with my whole track case. The Tech LRH mapped out for us works just fine, thank you. I’ll stick with that. Thankfully there are plenty of auditors in the Field who feel the same way.

      I do hope you continue to read both our blogs. Honest discussion never hurt anyone.

  6. Pingback: What happened to “old” tech? | From Ashes Born

Your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s