Talk:Operating Thetan/Archive 1

Archive 1

OT VIII not authentic

I think we may need to determine the correct place (article-wise) to put down the facts surrounding OT VIII that lead some people to believe it's authentic and others to think it's not. Given that Church representatives have at different times both declared it a forgery and identified it as a RTC-copyrighted church scripture, I think it might be pushing into original research to try and say which of the two it is. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

you never miss a chance to question the 'purported authority' do you Antaeus? Who is the originater of that information? I'll give you a clue where you can actually and honest to god find out. Walk over to any advanced organization in the world. (there are 5 you would be able to walk up to). Speak with anyone. Before long you would be talking with a person who has done it. Ask them, "is it real?" Skepticism is healthy and if skeptical, a person can learn things. But, if you have totally made up your mind and refuse to learn anything, that isn't skepticism. For some while I thought I could perhaps give you information that you lacked about almost any Church of Scientology procudure or practice, level or technque. I guess you never wanted any of that 'good will' and only wanted agreement with your point of view. Terryeo 04:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

if you have totally made up your mind and refuse to learn anything, that isn't skepticism. Yup, you're absolutely correct. If that was in any way an accurate description (instead of the straw man it is), it wouldn't be skepticism. Of course, your idea that on such a hotly disputed topic one could get the "truth" simply by asking a representative of one side is so naive it beggars belief. Kindly spare us the whiny fallacy that accepting "good will" means swallowing claims unconditionally. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The truth is, the Church of Scientology present the actual, valid situation in language as simple as it can. There is no hidden, secret meaning to it. Terryeo 02:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus, I've been looking into this a little bit in the last 48 hours and I can't find anything that supports the statement that "the claimed OT VIII in Fishman, which refers to Jesus as "a lover of young men and boys", is not considered authentic — not only has the Church stated it is inauthentic and not brought suit over it, but ex-members who reached OT VIII have come forward and concurred." Can we get some sources for this? I've seen relatively reliable sources on the net who don't make it such a done deal that the Jesus info is fake. This page seems to say that there were more than one version of the OT VIII document, but that both were real and not hoaxes. (I suspect that multiple versions exist whose use depends on what they think will work best for any given person, and this OC discussion with an ex-Scientologist seems to also hint in that direction.) Unless there is some hard data out there that indicates that the Jesus info is bogus, I think we need to present both options since I don't think the question has been fully resolved. If Jesse Prince says, "what is common amongst all the OTVIII documents that I have seen is the slander of Jesus Christ, being a pedophile, a lover of little boys, and a slander on religion", [1] that's good enough for me. wikipediatrix 23:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right that we should probably be presenting the options rather than drawing a conclusion. A lot of this didn't come out at the time of the previous discussion, but now it's clearer that there's not such a consensus on the non-authenticity as it had appeared. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

From the above it is completely obvious that several of you are unwilling to accept any valid information at all about these areas. The first thing you would have to understand is that the Church of Scientology means exactly what it says, it claims it can rehabilitate the human spirit. The OT levels are an example of that. But I'll tell you honestly, if you wish to understand the idea "rehabilitation of the human spirit" you need to start with a much easier to understand piece of the idea than, "total cause over the physical universe". That isn't exactly what is meant and I do wish you all would understand the words comprising the sentences comprising the quotes comprising the articles. Start anywhere, understand any piece of it. No one is misrepresenting, no one is lying to you, no one is exagerrating to you. I know very well some descriptions of the OT levels seem unreal to you. But you won't understand what is meant by insisting on taking every bit of meaning out of the articles. People succeed with Scientology, that is why we are writing articles. Terryeo 02:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, they later said the identification as scripture was erroneous. I wrote that bit from memory. Some have said it was written but never used as actual OT VIII course material. I shall have to dig up references. I'm currently finding all the accounts of OT VIII I can for use as references for the summary of the levels - David Gerard 09:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

You should probably do that, David, if you wish to write an expose sort of newspaper article. But for an encyclopedic article, why don't we stick with the widely published stuff like "Ability Gained" (per level) and stuff like that. Mostly people can not understand, "exterior with full perceptions" anyway and to add in, "Jesus, in addition to creating a few miricles did the following ..." seems counter productive, dispersive and counter-informative to me. People get so hotted up about it they can't understand anything else. Terryeo 02:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's some possible pertinant information from http://www.spaink.net/fishman/index2.html

When Arnaldo Lerma's house was raided by CoS, they took his computer. Under the writ of seizure, they were allowed only to identify files that were copyrighted bij CoS / RTC. A CoS lawyer - Kendrick Moxon, expert attorney and a senior OT - was asked to supervise this, and guess what: he identified OT8 as an RTC copyright and therefore, as a church scripture.... So now CoS has a severe problem. There are two possible answers:

• • OT8 is a fake. In which case Moxon overstepped the judge's rules for the search on Lerma's files big time - he designated and impounded it - and also doesn't know his OT's from a forgery (and didn't the cult claim that their technologies improve memory?)
  • OT8 is not a fake. In which case Hubbard did refer to Jesus as 'a lover of young boys' and CoS's lawyer Cooley was lying in court when he said that OT8 was a forgery.

You should sign your posts. I should sign mine. Why don't you keep the legal stuff to the legal articles and allow this article to speak of that which its title says it is? Terryeo 04:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

Note: I am not the one disputing any part of this article. I am just trying to bring it to the state that it would be in had the procedures at Wikipedia:Disputed statement been followed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

After having removed one's own reactive mind and thus attaining the state of Clear, one then goes on to remove one's Body Thetans (each of which has its own reactive mind) through Dianetic auditing.

This comment about removing body thetans is innacurate, as if removing body thetans is the only thing done after clear -- moved from comment made inside article by AI (talk · contribs) in this edit.

I've gone ahead and added the official descriptions of the OT levels as listed in literature provided by User:AI (see my talk page for more information on this). The cut and paste job I did may be too wordy for an encyclopedic article, but I figured it was better to put up everything and then work towards a concensus on what should stay. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I've amended the statement to say that this is done amongst other things (and removed the 'disputed' tag). Because it certainly is done - David Gerard 11:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

David I just don't know how to say this in a manner that would make it clear to you how "remove" isn't at all what is done. Before the action, what is being here called "body thetans" are present. After the action, what is here being called "body thetans" are not present. But "removal" isn't an accurate way to spell out what happens in between. Do you have the idea that an auditor takes an E-Meter, lays the guy down and uses the meter to pry those sucker thetans out of him? lol. Terryeo 05:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is mistitled

The title should be "THETAN." The Church of Scientology, like the Christian Church, the Islamic Church, etc, holds that a person is at least in part, spiritual. "THETAN" is the Scientology word for that. So this article should be titled "THETAN." Then, would be the opportunity to introduce the idea that Scientology has a goal to create so much freedom for an individual they might do things without a human body. This would be part of "Operating Thetan" if you follow this logic. First the root word, then the more specific situation that might come about. In an article, "THETAN" a section could deal with "Operating Thetan," the abbreviations OT, the levels the Church of Scientology defines (OT I, OT II, etc.). It isn't encyclopedic to have an article, Operating Thetan, introduce "THETAN" but more appropriate to have an article, "THETAN" introduce a more specialized subcatagory. Terryeo 18:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are free to create an article if it does not exist, per policy. If the overlap is great, then a proposal to merge the articles can be made later. Just Be Bold! :) --NightMonkey 21:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Would it be all right with everyone if I just retitled this article? A lot of work has gone into it. None of the information about OTxxxx Will become invalid if it has the title "Thetan" instead of the title "Operating Thetan" Okay with everyone ? Terryeo 21:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, thetan already exists as an artcle, and it is a redirect to Scientology beliefs and practices. So, if you do this, you'll need to remove that redirect before you can rename this article. Just FYI. --NightMonkey 00:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Right. thetan is a filled out article now. Terryeo 05:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Series Template

Removing this Series Template from across the Scientology related pages. This is not correct usage of Series Templates per the guidelines. They were set up to show the history of countries and were different articles form a sequential series. This is not the case with the Scientology pages, which are random pages on different topics – not a sequence of any kind. Wiki’s definition of a series is: “In a general sense, a series is a related set of things that occur one after the other (in a succession) or are otherwise connected one after the other (in a sequence).” Nuview, 15:00, 10 January 2006 (PST)

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_series

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_article_series

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Navigational_templates#Religion

There are both timeline-specific series, and series based a unifying theme. Ronabop 01:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Introduction?

The introduction for this article seems to be very akward (not in the least that the first sentance is just simply "In Scientology, an Operating Thetan is defined"). Given that I can't think of a way to make it so that it isn't akward, and yet still makes sense, I thought I'd just mention that here. Thanks, Salmar 22:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The article's introduction is awkward because the article is completely wrong to exist. Instead, an article, "thetan" should exist or an article "spirit" which this is a portion of. But some smart person who didn't understand the term saw it and thought, "oho! here is yet another opportunity to introduce a word not understood and thereby disperse and disrupt any understanding !" The article should be titled "Thetan" or better, this information should be under "spirit" or "spiritual being" perhaps. Terryeo 21:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

What is it about this article that makes you think the person(s) writing it didn't understand the term? You're doing more complaining than explaining. wikipediatrix 01:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Wikipediatrix, happy to have an opportunity to communicate with you once again. The reason I state, "the person writing this article didn't understand" is because the person who wrote this article was User:David_Gerard. This is available to anyone by clicking "article" "history." It is obvious to a person who knows the subject but here are some quotes from David's Talk page where he says outright or implies that he knows very little about Scientology or its body of information:

"trying to figure out WTF Scientology gets up to. I just so wish the original article hadn't sucked so much ... - David Gerard"

and he frequently communicates with ChrisO (who doesn't understand a thing about it if you will read the Dianetics discussion page) or its technology except that he must somehow disrupt any understandable information about it:

"I suspect that our resident Scientologists may have some issues with it, so it'll be interesting to see how it turns out... -- ChrisO"

So that is some of the reason why I state the person who created this article doesn't understand the subject matter of this article. But it obvious on the face of it if you understand what the words mean. What I want, Wikipediatrix, is things that can be understood. Feel free (from my point of view) to put all the cited controversy into everything you wish to. I have not and don't expect to remove cited information. This is per the policies we all follow toward making an encyclopedia. I'm not opposing you here. If you were to exactly follow wikipedia policies I would not be able to remove any of your text, ever. And the same is true for everyone. And hey, I've made mistakes too. Terryeo 17:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Virtually all the negative and critical comments about Scientology and Dianetics that you keep removing from Wikipedia articles are directly citable and verifiable. It's only a matter of time until they're all properly filled in, and then some. All your efforts to remove negative commentary about Scientology will ultimately only result in more and better-sourced criticism against it. There are already several articles that are more negative now than before you started messing with them. wikipediatrix 02:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

My position is Wikipedia's 3 policys. NPOV, verifiability and no original research. I've mentioned this to you several times and hope eventually that you understand me. I want articles that communicate. If it is about spirit then I hope that idea would be communicated by that article. If it is Thetan then I hope that idea would be communicated. Commentary which is unverified should be removed, per the above policy. Really it is everyone's task, the very concepts which wikipedia stands on. I have removed "negative commentary" because I have knowledge in the area. I have removed it per wiki policy, pasting it into the discussion area appropriately. Please feel free to do the same with "positive commentary" but, the lastes edits you did on this article removed verifiable definitions of "thetan" from the article without posting it to this discussion page for citing. Which is actually against Wiki policy. Get a clue, will you? Terryeo 13:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wikipediatrix, now I see what you did. You cut 'mostly my stuff' out of here, created a "thetan" article and pasted it there. Why didn't you mention that you did? Anyway I've edited the now existent Thetan article. I think you did the right thing Wikipediatrix, but you might have informed me. How do you feel about merging this article into the Thetan article, Wikipediatrix? Terryeo 15:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

retitling this page to "Thetan" and thus moving it

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was to propose a merge via WP:MM --Lox (t,c) 13:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Operating Thetan → Thetan I attempted to move this page by retitling it "Thetan" but it won't work for reasons beyond my understanding. I know there is at least one redirect labeled "thetan." So I have submitted that it be moved from this title to the title "Thetan." Any comments or votes one way or the other should be discussed here and voting can be done at the "articles for move" page. hmm, now I realize I should have put that link here. Terryeo 01:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support for the above reason Terryeo 01:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC) (Moved from WP:RM)
• Merge though I don't think I'm allowed to vote. 01:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC) (Moved from WP:RM, vote by 86.136.142.245)
• Support because I have had insertive anal sex with Tom Cruise. 70.177.90.238 00:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Operating Thetan is relevant for a whole different class of reasons than Thetan, namely the OT levels (especially OT III which contains the Xenu material). Both articles need to separately stand on their own - a merged one would be cluttered. wikipediatrix 14:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Thetan and Operating Thetan should remain separate articles and this merge should not have been performed without ever having gone through the correct procedure outlined at WP:MM. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Merge Thetan into this article before I make the move. —Nightstallion (?) 08:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey 'ya Night. The potential merge is beyond your control and mine at this time, I think. Its in the works and that is why you see the opportunity to vote, above. This is because I submitted it to proposed mergers, sepearate articles, etc. The idea here being this. If there is only one article and it is all about OT Levels I to .... whatever level, then the poor reader is left without any idea what "OT" means and prior to that, without any idea what "thetan" means. Thus, we have at this time a "Thetan" article and for those who want it, click the link and this article which is more about Thetans and levels and the Church of Scientology. Happy days. Terryeo 10:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure you understand what I mean: Before I make the move (which I can do, because I'm an administrator), you will have to merge the contents of the Thetan article into this article, because the current Thetan article will be deleted as a result of the move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, I misunderstood. Okay, I'll do that. Terryeo 15:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I see Antaeus Feldspar has undone the work I did toward a merge, stating his reason was that correct procedures were not followed. However, he refused to state what incorrectness he noticed. His deletions are not helpful. If there were some valid reason for his action he should have spelled out the correct procedure here and the deviation. In this manner would might work together. His action is POV, disallowing a communal action. Its not right. Terryeo 03:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Go read WP:MM, Terryeo. Pretending you had consensus for a merge when you never put the merge tags on the articles in question is just too pitiable even for you. What the heck did you think that {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} were for? Cry me a river with your "I see Antaeus Feldspar has undone the work I did toward a merge"; if you actually get a consensus for a merge after you've taken the proper steps to alert people, that would be different. But claiming that the merge is a "communal action" because you got two anonymous votes supporting you, one of which gave the reason of "because I have had insertive anal sex with Tom Cruise"? Get real. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I did read WP:MM. While your talk, as usual, isn't very polite I will nonetheless reply politely. I talked here on this page first. You can follow the timeline of the talk if you like. Then I proposed it be merged. You can follow the timeline of that if you like. Then Nightstallion said something about the merger which I understood. This was after a time of hardly anyone voting. On that day Wikipediatrix voted. Then I manually merged the articles. That got your attention and you reverted. Now you have voted. There you go, does that bring you up to date? Terryeo 18:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me interrupting, but I feel this conversation is starting to leave the bounds of a discussion on the proposed move. It seems that while a merge has been proposed, there is some opposition; would either of you object if this requested move is closed and a merge proposed as per WP:MM? I believe that this would allow all parties the chance to discuss the merge before any further action takes place. Thank you! --Lox (t,c) 20:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm good with it whatever we all decide is best to do. I might note that when I proposed the merger, there was no "thetan" article. Now there is. Terryeo 22:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the move request.

Thank you for your attention in the matter. Terryeo 02:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It is false to state, "scientologists believe"

That is just pure, plain, original research. It is unsupportable. You haven't made a survey of scientologists to find what they believe. It just won't work. You might say something like, "the church of scientology states ....." or you might say something like, "church literature states...." but you can not evaluate what every scientologist (or even a majority of scientologists) believe. That's original research, a conclusion of the editor and wrong. Terryeo 02:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Every religion has a belief system that its adherents believe, just as it would not be "original research" to say that Christians believe in Jesus Christ, and Predestinarians believe in Predestination. You pulled this same routine on the Clear (Scientology) article already. wikipediatrix 03:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, every religion has a group of beliefs. In this particular area I will point out a parallel in Christianity, so the situation becomes more clear (I hope). Do all Christians believe that tithing brings them closer to god? Some beliefs are central to Christianity, some are more, well, on the edge of the circle. Some statements such as, "Scientology believes that individuals exist as spirits and are eternal beings" would be accurate to the body of knowledge. But it is an individual thing, what an individual believes. I am pretty sure, well, I am completely sure there are many Scientologists which are unsure of that particular thing in the article. Does Scientology believe that after the body dies, an individual continues to exist? Yes. But does every scientologist believe that? Well, probably. But when it comes to some of the higher level stuff, people have doubts, skepticism, what do you call it? Terryeo 03:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

So you have doubts about the "higher level stuff", then? wikipediatrix 04:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll tell you what, Wikipediatrix. When you acknowledge that to make the statement, "Scientologists believe ... xyz" is not accurate then I'll be happy to respond to your question re: my personal beliefs. In the same way we can not assume that every Christian believes in every word of the bible, we can not assume that every Scientologist belives in every word of Scientology literature. If you acknowledge this point as being true and valid, I'll answer your question about my personal beliefs in that area.

We are talking about a religion here, or at least that's what Scientologists always insist it is, and a religion consists of certain beliefs and practices. There is no sense in saying "these are the beliefs that make up the religion" and then in the next breath stating "but there are individuals who profess to follow the religion while actually not believing the beliefs that make up the religion." You're claiming that this is a statement about all the individuals who are classifed or would classify themselves under the description of "Scientologists". It's not. It's a statement about what the description of "Scientologist" means. Is the statement "cats have tails" disproven by observing that some cats may have lost their tails in accidents, or even by observing that one specific breed, the Manx, is an exception to the rule? No, it is not, because we are not talking about "all the individual animals that would be counted as 'cats'" but "cats in the aggregate". -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It is true that in a lot of the world Scientology is a religion. However, in Isreal it is practiced as a philosophy, presented to the public as a philosophy, etc. It doesn't contradict any major religion but is intended (my opinion) to be knowledge about an individual's spirituality. Call that a religion, sure. Give it tax exemption, why not? But it is not an opposition to anyone thoughts, beliefs, etc. Terryeo 02:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is about "Operating Thetan". The "Scientology in Space Opera" article and this one and "Clear", all of them are particular datums, particular informations which are clearly beyond the certain knowledge of the average reader. So, yeah, it gets into beliefs. But as an individual Christian might or might not believe every passage in the Holy Bible, so too, an individual Scientologist might or might not believe a particular Scientology passage, or even a particular Scientology book. For example, Scientology 8-8008 proposes that individuals (as spirits) have existed a long time and slowly deteriorated in ability. The book goes on to tell about rehabilitating ability. Does every Scientologist believe that? Well, I don't know. Scientology says so but that doesn't make Scientologists believe it. The whole philosphy of Scientology is "If it is true for you, then it is true, period." Which means any Scientologist might consider any individual piece of information true or false.Terryeo 16:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand that can be difficulty in this area of beliefs. Heck, for any religion. So, here are two links. The first is to a list of professional religious figures who give their statements which often includes, "what do scientologists believe". [2] This second is again a professional opinion and about Scientology.[3]

Terryeo may have a point here. The following link Laurie Hamilton's opinion on the state of Operating Thetan is an example of a scientologist that doesn't really believe that the material universe can be bypassed, Operating Thetan or not: «In theory, no matter how "OT" someone gets, it could never be a given that he would possess essentially supernatural powers.» I've noticed other scientologists (outside the CoS) stating that they don't believe in "OT" powers (on Alt.religion.scientology). But then, clearly many scientologists really believe these "super powers": OT Phenomena Successes, Some Success Stories Raymond Hill 17:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he does have a point. If we were specifically addressing the issue of what percentage of Scientologists actually believe this point of their doctrine, then it might be reasonable to say "Let's avoid unsourced claims about how many Scientologists actually believe this". But this is an article about the point of doctrine, not about who believes it and who doesn't. One says "Cats have tails," not "a cat is defined as a creature that has a tail". -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The point is not actually mine, but belongs to Wikipedia. WP:V states, "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability" and it is an unverified statement to say, "Scientologosits believe the moon is made of green cheese." Stating "it is a tenent of faith that the moon is made of green cheese" might work, but to make it work it would have to be cited. such as, "HCOB of 13 Oct 69 states the moon is made of green cheese."Terryeo 18:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Wikipedia:Verifiability, Terryeo. It has to do with you, once again, deciding that a particular phrase which could be interpreted in several different ways can suddenly only be interpreted one way, your way, and proceeding to treat it as incontrovertible fact even if the actual facts prove your interpretation to be wrong. This is not a debate over whether the claim "All Scientologists, everywhere, without exception, believe that blah blah blah" is correct, it's a debate over whether anybody but you thinks that "Scientologists believe that blah blah blah" should be interpreted as "All Scientologists, everywhere, without exception, blah blah blah." Your insistence on adhering to one very rigid interpretation even in the face of contrary evidence bought you a lot of real trouble in the case of Wikipedia:Introductions. That trouble is not over yet; you cannot tell maliciously false lies about your fellow editors and expect not to receive any consequences. One would think you would have learned your lesson -- that is, if they didn't know you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar, I see what you mean, make sense. Raymond Hill 19:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

To say "Scientologists believe" does have several possible meanings. But, for purposes of an encyclopedia and in the context it means, "most scientologists, if asked would respond, 'I believe the state of man, 'operating thetan' exists". Isn't that it? It seems to me to be it. Either the state of man, "operating thetan" exists or it is a fairy tale. You do have to understand it is a condition a person is in and that condition includes their ability to perceive, to act, to communicate and all the rest. I am convinced that if you asked Scientologists, "do you believe the condition, 'operating thetan' exists" they would nearly all say yes. Is that sufficient? I am making the point that as you are sure that you could educate yourself about how to roof a house, so a scientologist, after some scientology, becomes convinced that he can learn the education of the OT levels. It is primarily an education and not a belief. Terryeo 19:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

In the context, "scientologist" means a follower of Scientology doctrine, thus it was correct to say "scientologists believe..." In any case, the article was revised and should now satisfy your initial concern. Raymond Hill 19:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see the article as it stands this minute does not include the famous, "Scientologists believe the moon is made of green cheese." However, editors in other articles of this Scientology series are quick to include, "Scientologists believe" because it is an easy to say, unproveable generality that would be difficult to disprove. I point again to WP:V which states the thereshold for inclusion is verifiability. If you can verify that Scientologists believe, "the moon is made of green cheese" then it is includable. Until then, no. Terryeo 00:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There should be no such statements as "Scientologists believe" as it is unverifiable. You can make a statement that "L. Ron Hubbard writes (such & such)" as that is verifiable to primary sources. --JimmyT 13:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The difference between "Scientologists believe ..." and "X is provably a point of Scientology doctrine, which by the nature of doctrine exists to be believed by Scientologists" is so incredibly small as to make all this flailing about how it is COMPLETELY UNPROVED that any Scientologists believe the tenets of their own doctrine quite possibly the stupidest hair-splitting ever. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well. I really don't mind at all talking in this area, people. I'm perfectly willing to talk about this area. A "scientologist" is a self-proclaimed sort of situation, okay? It is not a decreed situation, it is not a situation or status that you buy. It is self-proclaimed as well as I'm able to find out. In theory a person might buy vast amounts of stuff from Scientology and still not consider themselves to be "a scientologist". A person can buy a membership in "The International Association of Scientologists" but that doesn't actually MAKE them a scientologist. According to the church doctrine I've read, a "Scientologist is a person who uses Scientology Technology in their day to day life". That's one quote, anyway. But the most widely argued, disputed, misquoted area on here has to do with "Scientology Beliefs". Its appalling. Why can't you people discuss the issue? I'm certainly willing to. Terryeo 02:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting

There is no ongoing discussion here. Time to edit. --Tony Sidaway 02:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Unavailability of text

I'm curious why it is not mentioned in this article that Scientology has a copyright on its OT documents and vigorously prosecutes anyone who publishes them, preventing any public knowledge about the inner secrets of their doctrine. Note that I'm not saying we should violate CoS's copyright; this would violate WP policy.

Many religions keep various internal doctrines secret, claiming that the public is not ready or prepared for the spiritual knowledge contained therein. There's nothing unique about that. However, what is unique about CoS is that it uses the legal system to keep OT a secret. I have never heard of any other religion that does this.

Surely this is notable. Opinions? Kasreyn 17:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC

Removed sites with copyvios. --Spanked 00:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the protection of written documents in most countries time expire after a set period? Pure age would put a lot of internal faith documents for other religions in the public domain and prevent them from sueing, wouldn't it? I'm not an expert by any means, but isn't this why anybody can copy anthything written by people Shakepeare?

perfectblue 14:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This is true, but the problem is that the current copyright period in the US and Europe has been vastly increased at the behest of large corporations which own valuable copyrights; nothing really ever enters the public domain anymore. I think the copyright on these will expire 75 years after Hubbard died. Its rediculous (it really should be more like 10 years after death), but everyone is in the pockets of big corporations. Titanium Dragon 21:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

OT

I thought OT stood for occupational therapy.204.52.215.107 (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

OT Beyond VIII

In this video, Miscavige talks about L. Ron Hubbard leaving his body to become a higher OT http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPeTvghhd_M —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bza2007 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"Gain the ability to move things with their mind" at OT III

24.25.50.57 added the line "At this level, Thetans gain the ability to move things with their mind." to the OT III sub-section without any citation. Further down in the "Levels" section it implies that at some point a Thetan regains their ability to "move MEST". If this was an ability gain at this specific level it would have been cited before. A search of Google groups of -Scientology telekinesis "OT III"- (here) turns up nada and this subject has been hashed out there extensively. I removed the line as it was probably meant as a joke anyhow. Cirt put the line back claiming he would locate a source. I say it ain't gonna happen and that the line be remove. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

OTIX and OTX

Looks like the COS is about to release two new OT levels. They've allegedly built facilities for the new levels on Freewinds.

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i198/MasterSofTrancE/cult%20images/OTBriefing.jpg

http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=28112&postorder=asc

Nxsty (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Cost?

Is there any data on what the minimum (and average, if available) amount of dollars paid to CoS as they reach each of these levels? --NightMonkey 11:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I can only tell you it varies a lot. One pathway, the most expensive pathway, is to simply donate money to the CoS for the service of auditing. That is an expensive pathway because you are supporting the people who do it, supporting the buildings, taxes, lights, etc. The other pathway is to train and become an auditor. On that pathway you audit someone and your "buddy" in turn audits you. That pathway is a lot less expensive. Terryeo 18:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. However, the last step requires going to a SeaOrg. How much is that? I'm still looking for some specific estimates, if there are any available, or if someone wants to take a shot at it, based on their personal experience. --NightMonkey 20:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

All of the OT levels are done at locations which are staffed by Sea Org Members. Churchs and Missions are staffed by people. The lower organizations are created and staffed by anyone, the higher organizations by Sea Orgainization members. The OT levels are only available at "Advanced Orgs" as far as I know, which are staffed by Sea Org members. Terryeo 17:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I do not know that information, it varies from one individual to another, at least somewhat. At least hundreds and probably thousands would be my guess, though there might be some exceptions now and then. Terryeo 05:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The standard rate for OTVIII aboard the Freewinds is $20,000 USD. Neverwake (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Price

I think the article should include how much it costs in USD to graduate to each thetan level. Is there any way to find out? some sort of scientology menu if you will. Andman8 00:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

A direct mail piece copyrighted 2008 notes a donation price for OT VIII as $20,000. $4K for the level, $10K for "Two Eligibility Intensives", and $6K for 5 weeks of accomodations. Neverwake (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Unreleased Levels

This section should have an introduction; if these levels are unreleased then how do we know about them? Are they merely speculation? Who leaked them? When? Citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brutananadilewski (talk • contribs) 22:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Needs more objectivity - most of the Levels must've been written by a scientologist, because he/she takes it as a fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.213.46.212 (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
• The first few levels cite a book published by the CoS, and since they are between speech marks I would assume they are direct quotes. The "unreleased levels" might not actually exist; the OT VIII page claims the actual highest level is OT VII. Having said that, a quick Google search turns up this page, written by an ex-Scientologist whistleblower, which describes OT levels beyond 8. Make of it what you will. And I agree, the tone needs to be more encyclopaedic. Toph 1729 (talk) 05:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Description 2nd paragraph

Says:

After having removed one's own reactive mind and thus attaining the state of Clear, one may then go on to the levels above OT III which were later replaced by New Era Dianetics for OTs. L. Ron Hubbard wrote on September 15, 1978: "There is a special handling for OTs who have been run on Dianetics since Clear. It is called 'NED for OTs'."

The only reference is the grade chart of scientology courses, training and processing. The chart doesn't support most of this. The chart shows perhaps:

After having removed one's own reactive mind and thus attaining the state of Clear, one may then go on to the OT levels.

The rest seems to be original research taken from internet versions of the OT levels and not verifiable sources. Are there any books about Scientology that support these statements or something like them? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted text

I'm saving this paragraph which was just deleted with, it seems to me, inadequate rationale. While the paragraph could be improved, it's not the case that the article is just about the doctrine: the fact that OT materials were leaked onto Wikileaks, for example, isn't just a fact about the doctrine. It's understandable that someone wanting to read about Operating Thetan doctrine might want to learn how people learn the doctrine, including how much they pay to do so.

It is alleged that people are encouraged to complete very expensive courses and expect wonderful results; when the improvements fail to happen they are told the next course will bring the changes they anticipate. Members continue paying out steadily more for courses, and some even put their families into debt while chasing the elusive life-changing results.

MartinPoulter (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree there was inadequate rational for deletion. I've reverted that edit, so the text is still in the article. I'd welcome Paul Richter to contribute here to clarify his reasons if he still wishes to see the content removed. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The criticism is pretty generic and reads like a rant in that it could be said of anything expensive. Imagine it was said of a college education. It also implies the courses don't give any results. Perhaps it should be more blunt and just say that some believe the courses don't work, are not worth the money and people who can't afford them are encouraged to buy them anyways. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The quote by Melton in the lead is a bit critical (and doesn't sound like a rant), perhaps it doesn't belong in the lead and should be moved here. Just a thought. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: the approximate cost of moving from level OT VI to level OT VII. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)