Am I mistaken in my understanding that Scientologists are not given the full information about the religion until they get to the upper tiers? And that at each successive tier they are given more information? (I don't know their specific ranking of followers.)
The entire subject is described and exposed in books and recordings (formerly "tapes" but now also CDs and DVDs).
Early on (back in the fifties) when things were in a state of fairly constant flux, certain methods and processes were used, and it was discovered that some of these were best employed only after a certain amount of case "undercutting." The foundations for these are still available in the books and lectures, but for
managed case progress the more advanced material isn't addressed until certain milestones are reached.
You could consider the application of advanced procedures "secret" but the thing is that the fundamental concepts, principles, and outlines are still publicly available data, still published in books and still sold in the lectures. If I may draw a parallel, there are things you don't teach a novice in martial arts. They're not
secret per se, but it is understood that the novice isn't really prepared for that stuff. He can see it demonstrated, there's a ton of written material explaining it, and the essential principles are well known. Still, that part of the training is reserved for those who have achieved a degree of readiness. This is not a perfect analogy, but the idea is that you don't teach or train above the level of individual preparedness.
There is no requirement for "belief" in a conventional sense. One discovers what is true for oneself. In the course of studying the source materials, rote memorization is eschewed in favor of comprehension and understanding, and actual understanding is expressed as an ability to apply. In the course of reviewing the actual material in one's own case (one's own memories and history), one discovers stuff. In the course of that process, one arrives at new understandings.
At no point does anyone tell or instruct one what to think or feel about what is discovered. And you will never, ever, hear anyone ask "
how does that make you feel?" (Well, you
might, but you would understand that it's a joke.)
Now, as far as "secrets," the contents of one's own case files are confidential. But those aren't "church secrets," those are
your secrets, and there's a strict code of conduct related to that.
If you read a book, or if you read several of the books, and you find that -- for you, personally -- it's all rubbish, then
for you personally it's all rubbish. On the other hand, if you read some books, listen to a few lectures, and decide -- for yourself, personally -- that there is something worthwhile here and something worth exploring and understanding better, then
for you personally the subject would hold some validity.
There are some really basic principles that show up in the basic books, like the idea that mankind is a spiritual construct, not a purely physical bio-machine. Like the idea that mankind seeks to survive and that his problems and solutions are all derived from that. Like the idea that ethical conduct is essential to a happy life. The idea that communication is hugely important. That one is responsible for his own decisions and responsible for his own life. That it is possible to help others.
What you will not find is some deep, dark, special-handshake-and-weird-ceremony "inner circle" where the code of conduct is different from any of the published codes of conduct. The Code of Honor applies everywhere. The principles published in the book "
The Way To Happiness" apply at all levels. No "hidden standard" for "insiders" versus "the public." Kind of in the same way that
The Four Rules apply just as much at GunSite as they do at your local range.
The
Press (the same ones who bring you those exciting episodes of "fun with gun control") delight in discovering scandals in (or related to) Scientology, although they're somewhat more circumspect nowadays, since the church hits back. Yes, they maintain a fleet of heavy-hitting lawyers, and have ever since they were attacked by the US government for offering to help with astronaut training. Yes, the Foundation Church in D.C. was raided by the FBI in 1963, and the case took ten years to resolve, with the dot-gov eventually returning all the seized records and materials. That was only the first of many efforts by governments to eliminate them. I would imagine that if you had an organization which was the object of governmental and media attacks over several decades, you might want to maintain a fleet of attorneys as well.
I no longer expect the church to get anything like a fair hearing in the press, on the Internet, or even in court. Its expansion is a function of acceptance of its merits, along with a willingness to defend itself.
In 1972, I attended a lecture. The next week, I took a communications course. The week after that, I read my first book, entitled "
The Scandal Of Scientology," which was supposed to be "an objective, investigative report" on the church and its activities. By the time was I finished I was confused and angry. The book described, among other things, the course I had just completed, and the description was so incorrect, so misleading, and just plain
wrong, that I couldn't conceive how anyone doing an "impartial" review could write that crap. I took more courses and read some of the source works. I concluded that the author of
Scandal was full of it.
So, no, there's no "big secret" about the church or about the religion and its philosophies. I will concede that there's not just a single tome to which people can point and say "what I believe is all in that book." Hubbard was astoundingly prolific, and he wrote and lectured actively on the subject for more than thirty years. So there's a ton of material, and you won't get through any significant portion of it in a day or a week or a month. However, in a day or a week or a month you can achieve a solid grasp of the subject and its aims and goals.
It is not a subject that invites "consensus" but rather individual understanding, so don't expect to go somewhere magical on the Interwebz and find a discussion forum where people "argue" the principles. If you find that you can use it to improve your life, then you're better off. If you find it makes no sense, that's fine too. However, I will caution you that anywhere tyranny is welcome or group think is encouraged, you will find hostility to the subject.
Investigate for yourself. Find a book or three. If you don't like what you find, then at least you have an honest foundation for your opinion, and you're not operating on rumor.
