Home > Church of Scientology > AP: The Church of Scientology is going through a difficult season

AP: The Church of Scientology is going through a difficult season

The Associated Press has released a well written piece titled “Defections, court fights test Scientology“.

The AP Religion Writer, mr. Eric Gorski touches on one of the perpetual lies told by the church – that there are at least 8 million scientologists world-wide:

One major survey of American religion shows Scientology declining in the U.S., however. The estimated number of Americans who identify as Scientologists rose from 45,000 in 1990 to 55,000 in 2001, then plummeted to 25,000 in 2008, according to the American Religion Identification Survey.“.

Either there really are that few scientologists in the US, or there are thousands of scientologists too PTS to say so in an anonymous survey. Either way, it does not bode well for the church. The decline from 2001 to 2008 is significant and is seriously hard to “talk away” or blame the statistics. See sources here and here.

All the scientologists I have talked to know that 8, 10 or 12 million scientologists world-wide is a lie, unless you count people who would truthfully answer “No” to the question “Are you a scientologist?”.

As noted on this blog before, even the Scientology newspaper Freedom Magazine admits that only 9,523 Scientologists live in the Tampa Bay area – the very Mecca of Scientology. By this number, the church itself defines who they would count as a scientologist. It is however a far cry from the 94000 needed to satisfy the Tampa Bay quota for 8 million scientologists world-wide.

The church is not expanding – and I think the troubles and contraction will last for many a season. I only hope the tech will survive the bad PR generated by Tommy Davis and the church management.

Advertisements
Categories: Church of Scientology
  1. jimcp
    2009-11-02 at 00:52

    “… I only hope the tech will survive …”. It takes a while in the deprogramming proces to digest that there is no tech. You did it all by yourself. The paradox is that you are going to need Scientology to free yourself from Scientology: confront and handle. Confront the con. Throw away the books and certificates. Stop talking scientologese. – One day you will laugh about the fact you ever believed you were an OT.

    • 2009-11-02 at 06:55

      This is the type of disrespect and black/white single-mindedness that makes me proud to be an explorer of free will.

      You are welcome to post here again if you crank up your tolerance.

    • ExKane
      2009-11-02 at 07:02

      Jim, just because there may not be any such thing as an OT as defined by the tech does not mean that Geir hasn’t been changed in a way that he perceives as positive.

      • 2009-11-02 at 07:17

        My view is simple;

        [? free will] OT is for real (but not the way you might think)

        • ExKane
          2009-11-02 at 08:00

          It’s an interesting issue (of whether or not it is exterior to one’s own mind, and whether or not it can be achieved by alternate means than Scientology, especially ones involving self-determination) and one I think we could go into quite deeply.

          • Overdriver
            2009-11-02 at 08:49

            Good try 🙂 I would advise you to make a forum on it by yourself on some other site.

          • StarsAwait
            2009-11-02 at 09:26

            No, there’s no alternate tech to handle the GPM for one. This is an actual thing which is only handled with Scientology processing.

    • RJ
      2009-11-02 at 09:58

      Er thanks Jim.

      Now go back to your cave and play with your Neanderthal friends and when you can type out a coherent sentence come back and see us 🙂

  2. Chris
    2009-11-02 at 03:06

    “The Church of Scientology is going through a difficult season”
    Haha,isn’t that the understatement of the century!!!
    We’ll all be lighting our fires with GAT certs and IAS promo soon enough.
    With thanks to heroes like Geir of course!!!

  3. 2009-11-02 at 04:59

    ARIS never published the number of 25.000 due to statiscal limitations. Out of the 54.000 Americans that were surveyed in 2008, 6 identified themselves as Scientologists, down from 13 in 2001. This leads to significant error margins if you try to extrapolate to the entire population.

    In fact, it is not a correct statement to claim that the membership plummeted between 2001 and 2008. It’s nearly certain that membership declined, but how much cannot be reliably measured from the ARIS numbers.

    I must say, although I am happy that media are starting to challenge the blatantly inflated CoS number, it can’t help feeling a bit dissappointed that AP didn’t properly qualify this.

    On the other hand, it ought to worry COB somethat that 54.000 is too small a sample size to accurately predict the number of Scientologists in the US.

    • 2009-11-02 at 07:01

      Even with statistical uncertainties as to the exact number of scientologists in the US, it is quite certain that it extrapolates to nowhere near 8 million world-wide 😉

    • Heather
      2009-11-02 at 19:53

      In 2007, the CoS were claiming 3.5million in the US alone.

      http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-160675619/scientology-center-heads-downtown.html

      Geir, I’ve checked this article summary and there’s no confidential material in it. Can’t speak for the whole article, though it doesn’t strike me as likely given the tenor of the article.

  4. Nom de Plume
    2009-11-02 at 05:14

    This one is gonna be an ouchie for the taken-over CO$, I can tell.

    As some wag once put it, the only true rising stat for Miss Cabbage’s CO$ is “Number of Blown Scientologists”.

  5. Barney Rubble
    2009-11-02 at 05:56

    I’ll tell you how the claim of 8 million members from personal experience comes from a world wide Central Files, that has existed in the Church for decades(probably not any longer).

    What that entails is anyone who has boought a book in a Church facilty, bought any course, or given any dono of any kind-even a 1 dollar advanced payment is automatically recorded as one of these 8 million figure.

    So case in point, if a regular Joe Blow buy’s a DMSMH book back in 1970, and never did a thing again and even if he is now dead, he is one of those 8 million parishoners.

    Of course knowing how stat pushing works, they probably added all the people that bought a book at your local Barnes and Noble Bookstore as well.

    That’s the way it goes.

    • 2009-11-02 at 07:13

      I know – that’s why the sentence: “…unless you count people who would truthfully answer “No” to the question “Are you a scientologist?”.” 😉

  6. Barney Rubble
    2009-11-02 at 05:59

    I’ll tell you how the claim of 8 million members from personal experience comes from- a world wide Central Files, that has existed in the Church for decades(probably not any longer).

    What that entails is anyone who has bought a book in a Church facility, bought any course, or given any dono of any kind-even a 1 dollar advanced payment is automatically recorded as one of those 8 million figure.

    So case in point, if a regular Joe Blow buy’s a DMSMH book back in 1970, and never did a service again and even if he is now dead, he is one of those 8 million parishoners.

    Of course knowing how stat pushing works, they probably added all the people that bought a book at your local Barnes and Noble Bookstore as well.

    That’s the way it goes.

  7. sherrymk
    2009-11-02 at 06:06

    Excellent point Geir. Any one who can think and do a bit of simple math has to know that it’s a lie. In Southern California, for instance, which boasts the largest population of Scientologists in the world there are varying figures I was told by CLO..20,000 to 40,000, depending on who you talk to and including 1)those people who haven’t been on lines for years 2) those people not saying that they aren’t Scientologists anymore and 3) staff members 4)all the multiple mailings to the same individuals. I recall a conversation I had last year with the WUS Programs Chief at CLO WUS. Really great young gal. But she had told me that she was on post from 1pm till 5pm and the rest of the time selling the basics because “there are 20,000 Scientologists out there but where are they all? How come it’s so difficult to get 4000 people to the shrine for an event? Something needs to be done about this!”, all in response to my question and concerns about how she could possibly be running all of WUS(West of the Mississippi)on 4 hours a day with anything like actual management of the orgs getting done.

    Do the math…it doesn’t add up…not by about 7,550,000 people.

  8. UnDisturbed
    2009-11-02 at 06:26

    And the AP article quotes Tommy Davis “said Scientology is flourishing …He said assets and property holdings have doubled over the past five years”

    My God is that what the Church of Scn has now become. Counting its assets and property holdings? Wasn’t there once a man named LRH whose valuable products were actually real live people audited and trained?

  9. Hubbardianen
    2009-11-02 at 08:01

    International Management is not succeeding. In a normal company, the management would have got fired immediately. Why doesn’t this happen in CoS? Because there’s no democracy in CoS. Elections please…

    Now we have to wait until Scientologist one by one drop off the church until there are more outside than on the inside, then a change might take place… that will take a too long time.

    We should have a list on the internet where everybody can sign to remove Intl Management.

    • Overdriver
      2009-11-02 at 08:59

      I think by elections we could get into “similar” situations. You know, bank agreements…
      However a group of OTs. But you see, what OTs? Geir is quite unique in this regard. I know, there are other OTs who think the same, but their and our hands are really tied…
      Regarding democracy, somewhere Ron said what political form would be ideal (if one knows the reference, please mention it) and I think similar. People should be on a much higher level spiritually and ethically (and I do not mean here party ethics) for safely trusted with democracy.

      • Hubbardianen
        2009-11-02 at 11:08

        Current system does not work since management seems to be untouchable. Democracy is applied in many other places of the world. An election every 5th year would be enough.

        • Overdriver
          2009-11-02 at 18:45

          Democracy, you mean we have a bus with 120 people and each can have some word where the bus go and with what speed, etc? That leads to nowhere…
          Or democracy where every passenger is equal, like above but those who have covert means (like more money, etc…) are more equal than others? 😀
          I do not say where do I live but democracy is a very funny game here 😀

          • 2009-11-02 at 19:11

            Democracy have worked very well in Norway – and that’s a whole country full of all kind of people. The trick is not to protest it and supplant it by a dictatorship but to make the democracy work.

            • Overdriver
              2009-11-02 at 19:33

              I can imagine it works well in Norway, but do you think democracy works in the USA?
              There are factual problems like wars, crime, poverty, environmental damage and even overpopulation (op – at least in main cities)… Anything important happens about these issues? I can’t see real results…

              • 2009-11-02 at 19:39

                Do you count the US as a democracy?

                But that aside, the US as a whole works much better than the church does today.

          • Hubbardianen
            2009-11-03 at 08:34

            I heard a good description of democracy: That’s when two wolves decides to eat one sheep for dinner.

            Democracy is by no means perfect, but it’s the best so far. Everybody should have their say and the majority will decide. This does not mean that people can be violated (as in the wolves example) but everybody must have minimal human rights. The same with the “Greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics” theory. Minimum human rights for everyone.

            When broad guidelines have been established in a democratic way, I believe a good, strong, fair, smart and forceful (why not good looking and well dressed) leader should work for those guidelines.

            • Overdriver
              2009-11-03 at 09:51

              Agreed.

        • Overdriver
          2009-11-02 at 18:47

          On the other hand therecan be much fun in it. For five years we can go into that direction and for other five years into an other direction. Where will we arrive? 🙂

          • 2009-11-02 at 19:13

            Like my country… according to recent surveys, the best place in the world to live. And we have Santa… You are all welcome for X-mas.

            • Overdriver
              2009-11-02 at 19:34

              Thanks Geir! 🙂
              I would love to be there! 🙂

            • Hubbardianen
              2009-11-03 at 08:28

              No, no, Santa lives in Sweden. 😉

          • Hubbardianen
            2009-11-03 at 08:36

            That’s what happens when a country changes government. It happened in Sweden three years ago and it will probably change in the next year. That’s one minus side of democracy. But it’s a price you have to pay I guess. Overdriver, what do you want? CoS ruling the world? Dictatorship?

            • Overdriver
              2009-11-03 at 09:53

              Come on! 🙂
              That’s your imagination…
              (I’ve just agreed on 26. Very good ideas.)

      • Maria
        2009-11-02 at 13:55

        I remember that scale. Republic was at the top.

        • Hubbardianen
          2009-11-02 at 17:29

          What scale?

          • Maria
            2009-11-02 at 20:52

            This scale is from HCOB 17 Mar 69 – Politics

            REPUBLIC 3.0
            DEMOCRACY 2.5
            SOCIAL DEMOCRACY 2.0
            FASCISM 1.5
            COMMUNISM 1.1
            ANARCHISM 0.0

            HCOB 13 Feb 65 Issue II
            “The only difference in existing systems of politics is their relative values in giving the individual a chance to develop and receive a higher level of personal sanity and ability.

            HCOB 14 Jun 65 Issue III issued as an HCO PL 10 Jan 68
            “All statements attacking any political entity or ideology are hereby withdrawn and cancelled in any lectures or literature.”

            • Jeff
              2009-11-03 at 07:22

              Notice that voluntary cooperation is not on this. I’d put it at the top of the scale and that’s really the answer here. No need to have a monopoly. A democratic monopoly and a dictatorship monopoly are both still monopolies and will both have problems.

      • LO
        2009-11-02 at 18:08

        Flunk Overdriver !
        reread KSW !
        You want to say we as a group are a mob and agree only on Bank agreement !
        Come on we have the tech !
        It’s not fine when you define your friends as a mob and only able to agree on the Bank !
        This was long Time ago. We have evolved !

        • LO
          2009-11-02 at 18:15

          This invalidation of democratie and scientologists is acting like a false datum and heavily used by COS of today to justify “Command Intention”. The group (composed of individuals) is not alod to think (too dangerous as Bank would come out), only DM knows what we have to do !
          Lrh didn’t write just this sentence about democratie. Sorry, we can’t google yet all the references about it. But one day….

          • Overdriver
            2009-11-02 at 19:37

            This is not invalidation of democracy and of Scientologists, so please do not try to black PR me.
            It is great if there is a command intention if the intention is good.

        • Overdriver
          2009-11-02 at 19:41

          Look, I hope it is not a problem if I do not take your flunk.
          I did not says my friends are mob, but if you try to paint me in that way, it is for sure it is exactly you who consider others here are mob. Stop being melicious.

  10. RJ
    2009-11-02 at 10:36

    Wow Davy and the gang are in total affluence on bad PR this week!!!!

    Check this out:

    http://www.wsmv.com/news/21480322/detail.html

  11. 2009-11-02 at 10:54

    Isene wrote ” This is the type of disrespect … “. No disrespect intended, on the contrary!

    Although deprogramming as such is a controversial topic there is wide agreement that an important aspect of freeing oneself of a cult is dropping the language. I use it as a measure to judge / estimate if or how far someone is in the process of ‘deprogramming’.

    Isene reports considerable successes in his career and personal life. It is merely my opinion that it is part of the trap to think it is because of Scientology instead of in despite of Scientology.

    Beware of the freezone, freezoners are at best denialists of the con while many are worse and are selling ‘auditing’. Visit http://www.spiritologie.eu for an example, there you will find a body operated by the thetan LRH, how darker can it get?

    While there are so many other games to play.

    • 2009-11-02 at 14:30

      You: “No disrespect intended, on the contrary!”. Me: Read your original post again.

      Then read the following before you post again:
      My positions
      Fixed ideas
      On differentiation
      Oh, the arrogance

      Then read:
      General comments and questions” and skim through the comments to ensure that in the future you are not being redundant on this blog and that you actually do contribute something new and of value.

      You are fairly close to getting a yellow card for off-topic. Please move off-topic posts to the general section as in the last link above.

  12. 2009-11-02 at 12:36

    Robert Vaughn Young, Former Head of PR for the C of S in the US, spilled the beans
    on this false reporting of the # of Scientologists in his 1997 post

    How Scientology “Grew” to 8 Million Members

    Here’s an excerpt.

    “When what came into play was the LRH order that Scientology is always
    growing. He wrote it in a policy letter, to never admit to anything but
    growth. That meant the “one million” had to grow. Again, no calculations
    were made. No organizations were asked to submit figures. Perhaps six
    months later, we were “1.1 million” and then later “1.25 million” and so
    the membership figure began to grow. Occasionally it would produce some
    humor, as when a reporter would call the US office and along the way ask
    for the membership figure and he/she would be put on hold while someone
    asked what the latest one was. “1.5” someone shouted. “No, we used that
    one last month, make it 1.6,” suggested another. “Why not 1.75,” someone
    else asked. “Too many digits,” someone would call back, “make it 1.8.”
    “Hey,” the original PR would ask, “I’ve got a reporter here on hold, gimme
    a figure!” “Racquel Welch,” came a fast reply from someone coming down the
    stairs. ”

    Full post here: [link removed due to reference to confidential material]

    • RJ
      2009-11-02 at 21:39

      Patty the reason for the 8 Million figure, is because Ron mentions it in FOT in the first Chapter and Intro which was just an approximation.

      Back then Scientologist meant anyone who was improving conditions . Not what it means now which is a card carrying member of the IAS as defined in the IRS info pack.

      If they went by this number entirely they’d have 40 to 50 thousand actual members, but they are not even going by that definition! They are probably going by number of Dianetics books sold world wide which is about 12 mill.

      The first one is an approximation based on a broad definition of Scientologist, the latter the one the Church currently uses is a false over inflated stat.

      • 2009-11-02 at 22:07

        One should use hte definition suited for the correct understanding for the receiver. Hence, when a statistic shows “Number of Acientologists world-wide”, it should be comparable to “Number of Muslims world-wide” as a statistic. There should be apples and apples. To do otherwise is to (intentionally) mislead – although that may be the purpose.

    • 2009-11-06 at 22:30

      “Full post here: [link removed due to reference to confidential material]”

      Link removed due to reference to confidential material?

      Maybe it’s time to rename this blog “Somewhat straight talk on Scientology”?

      The message sent here, is that Scientology, in the end, is about having *someone else decide for you* what is appropriate or not for *your* “spiritual progress.” This holds true for the Church of Scientology, and this appears to still hold true for ‘independent’ Scientologists.

      Sorry, can’t help, I’ve always been suspicious of those who rationalize *one way or another* that some things must not be said/seen. Would the censorship you engaged here still apply if the whole planet was run under Scientology rules?

      • 2009-11-07 at 07:15

        The rules should be simple enough to understand. The reasons should be clearly explained. As for the *someone else decide for you*, read all my blog posts and look again. You are trolling, but I guess you knew that.

        • 2009-11-07 at 14:13

          I am not trolling — and dismissing me as a troll is not going to help me understand your rationale. I read your position re. confidential material: “I will not post or link to confidential material on this blog. Scientologists should feel safe coming here to get truth.”

          That’s what I fail to understand: How is a *link* to (supposedly) confidential materials going to make Scientologists feel unsafe? (You can answer in private if you wish, I don’t mind, although I suspect you must be pretty busy.)

          • 2009-11-07 at 17:45

            I know how a scientologist feel regarding this subject. I have spoken to hundreds of scientologists about this and they do feel it is unsafe to risk exposure to upper level material. I draw the line at a safe place in the sand, that’s all.

            I didn’t say you were a troll. I said you were trolling. Please don’t take it personally.

            • 2009-11-07 at 18:46

              My whole point is that I make a distinction at removing entirely a link, as opposed to merely labeling a link as “Unsafe for Scientologists.”

              Hence my last question: With your rationale, on a planet only populated by Scientologists, none of them could find those confidential levels in the event they change their mind. The example might seem extreme, but ultimately it’s the outcome of applying your rationale, and that’s the kind of thought experiment that makes me conclude your rationale in removing the link entirely is not compatible with letting people chose for themselves.

              • 2009-11-07 at 19:02

                Jumping to the conclusion that my rationale would remain the same when you extrapolate your interpretation into the absurd is ….. well, absurd.

              • 2009-11-07 at 19:30

                Not really absurd. A real life example is the Church of Scientology — which no doubt use the same rationale: protecting its members. The principle of free flow of information (as opposed to censorship) starts at individual level. Any individual action to prevent people to reach more information is a brick on the wall.

              • 2009-11-07 at 19:47

                You were concluding on my stance on this based on an extrapolation ad absurdum – that my stance would remain the same given that the whole population would become scientologists. I say that does not logically follow. Then you answer with the above. Handle your logical fault first.

              • 2009-11-07 at 20:43

                No, I concluded on what happens when *whoever/whatever* uses your rationale on a larger scale. The bottom line is that you *did* removed non-private information posted by *someone else*, which could be of interest to a reader, self-assessing *yourself* as someone who “know[s] how a scientologist feel regarding this subject.” The Church of Scientology has a history of doing the exact same thing (Ex. it did it with google/[link removed due to reference to confidential material] back in 2002.) And now you are asking me to dismiss what you *did* here, and rather *speculate* that at some unknown, larger scale, you would stop engaging in doing this. My opinion is that principle of free flow of information starts at *individual* level, and if someone violate this principle at individual level, you can’t fault someone else for thinking that the violation would not still apply at an ever larger scale. On the other hand, I would have found admirable if you had merely labeled the outgoing link with “(WARNING: Might not be suitable to Scientologists — Isene Geir).” Having been warned, Scientologists in the end could decide to follow or not the link, *their* choice.

              • 2009-11-07 at 21:15

                It’s my blog. Back in 2002, the Internet wasn’t and never will be the property of the CoS. Your logic is faulty. You seem to have very little knowledge of how a scientologist thinks about these things. There are plenty right here on this blog who has commended the rules. And I am not asking you to speculate on my views given an absurd extrapolation – you were already. I asked you to stop speculating. So, again, please stop.

                My blog. My rules. Don’t like it? Too bad.

                In the meantime, obey the rules.

              • RJ
                2009-11-07 at 21:01

                R.Hill,

                Why Scientologists don’t publish links to confidential materials or allow them to be published on their blogs or websites is because of the following policy:

                HCO POLICY LETTER OF 11 AUGUST 1971

                SECURITY OF DATA

                (begin fair use)

                Issued with a small amount of R6 data in 1964, three or four persons promptly used
                it on pcs knowing well it was forbidden. The pcs became ill or misemotional toward us.
                And just the day I write this (original writing 4 October 1965) I myself encountered a pc,
                very ill, who had had some original R6 data misused on her and did not suspect why her
                case and health worsened. She was not ready for it at all.
                The issue earlier was a trial balloon, in a sense. I found certain persons (a small
                minority) were not up to responsibility for the material of April 1964.
                Therefore our firm action will be that the moment we find the material of the
                Clearing Course or OT Course has escaped or been misused we will quickly trace the
                person who was insecure and cut off all further or any future Clearing or OT data issue to
                that person. The likelihood of independent discovery even with clues has proven to be
                nonexistent by actual review of auditors trying to find pieces of it when they had over
                half of the answers already.
                You must realize that we suffer, all of us, from the misuse of knowledge concerning
                the mind at a very early period. To place this data near such people as psychiatrists or
                even states places them in a position to enslave people or repeat the original action and
                cave people in. A very small minority, receiving incorrect data, did promptly use it
                harmfully on others after April 1964.
                Until we ourselves have climbed well out of the hole, we must safeguard the
                materials. Our case gains depend on it. And others could make our salvage of people
                impossible.
                We do not safeguard these materials from any commercial consideration. Our
                futures, those of each of us and those of all Scientologists, depend on our keeping this
                material under lock and safeguarded from abuse until we are well away as a group and
                can handle things better as individuals as well as a group.

                (end fair use)

                You seem to constantly talk about freedom of speech claiming it so sacred while ignoring freedom of religion!

                Also if Geir wants to make his site safe for Scientologists then that is also his right.

                Not only that but a majority of the people who come to this website prefer it that way.

                Now I suggest if you want to post confidential material or links to such, you have *total freedom* to go somewhere else!

  13. Thalkirst
    2009-11-02 at 13:19

    In a conversation with a Sea Org member a WISE Int in 2008, she said that the worldwide trained & processed list (which includes all people who have ever done a step on the Bridge) has 250.000 confirmed names & addresses. Around 50.000 is considered on-lines, in good standing and actively taking services, 150.000 are who are “off-lines” but still consider themselves Scientologists (not progressing since ages, but occassionally show up on events, buy a book etc., or do a smaller service) and 50.000 are the declared SPs, PTSes, ex-Scientologists etc.

    • 2009-11-02 at 14:35

      This is constructive contribution. Thanks.

    • rebel008
      2009-11-02 at 17:29

      There is an analysis of this on the “Leaving Scientology” blog. Based on information from those who worked at the Int Base in the Marketing area and dealt with these lists, the “trained and processed” list was about 200,000 and included anyone who had ever taken a course, even a Div 6 paid course. This was the Int central files list. Most of these were considered “off lines,” but there is no way to assume they still considered themselves Scientologists. The Int “Bodies in the Shop” stat (people in the orgs that week) was 16,000 to 18,000 weekly. Event attendance Internationally was 25,000 to 35,000 (this was five years ago). My own estimate is that there are no more than 50,000 active Scientologists in the world. And by the way, they claim 9,523 Scientologists in the Tampa Bay area, along with 1,500 staff, yet they hold their events in Ruth Eckerd Hall, which holds only 2,180 people.

    • Heather
      2009-11-02 at 20:08

      Interesting. That’s 20% declared, etc.

  14. Maria
    2009-11-02 at 14:14

    In 2005, adherents.com issued a count of world religions. They calculated 500,000 Scns throughout the world. http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

    They explain how they derived this figure here: http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Scientology

  15. Pete
    2009-11-02 at 15:08

    The Church of Scientology is expanding like never before, is “exploding”, hum?

    So, lets see…

    How many clears?
    How many class VIII’s on the last years?

    Where do I find valid stats like these? I’m curious.

    • Jim Logan
      2009-11-02 at 17:06

      Pete,
      THAT is a valid question. Where do you find those stats? That you can’t easily find them is what is termed an ‘outpoint’. From Data Series 11, The Situation, if you took that first outpoint and did the steps of DS 11, you’d isolate the area needing closer inspection. A clue here is that management to be rational, operates on statistics. If you can’t find the stats, then maybe that indicates management isn’t actually operating on them. If they were, then they’d be easily available to all the management is trying to ‘manage’. Ask for the stats. Then you’ll know what to ask about next. Keep in mind the rest of DS 11 and in particular a paragraph at the end of the policy where it covers that ‘others with fixed ideas and madness can defy the most accurate solutions’, but ‘that’s part of the Situation’.

      Doing the above, for anyone, can bring a lot of what’s been going on into clearer focus.

    • Hubbardianen
      2009-11-02 at 17:31
  16. i am myself
    2009-11-02 at 17:53

    Just over 2000 IAS members in Canada. *Including* staff and free 6-month members. Very good source; staff member. (not me)

    Love this blog, your writeups, the general tone here and lack of fixed ideas and reactivity. Feels more like Scientology than the church does. 🙂

    • 2009-11-02 at 19:08

      Thank you – both for the data on Canada and for the compliment.

  17. Heather
    2009-11-02 at 19:02

    The figure of 8m was used as early as 1992 (Nightline interview with David Miscavige: [link removed due to reference to confidential material]).

    The figure was 10m in 2005, and we all know what’s happened in Scientology’s explosive growth during the last five years!

    [link removed due to reference to confidential material]

    • 2009-11-02 at 19:23

      Sorry for the link-stripping, Heather 😦 The haters & degraders do not realize how much they are working against effectively stopping the abuses with these references to confidential material – it’s an effective turn-off for scientologists still in the church. I hope for people to use more reason and sense than emotional knee-jerk reaction. And I would stress the jerk in “knee-jerk”.

      And to add to your comments on numbers:
      According to the statistics from freedommag.org, the church has roughly doubled in the last five years. Which would bring it to some 20 million Scientologists world-wide. In the ARIS survey, that would translate to 4800 people answering that they are scientologists, not 6.

      • Heather
        2009-11-02 at 19:44

        yes. sorry about the links. I realised after posting submit. Here’s a link from 2006 which should be safe. 😉

        http://publicaffairs.scientology-tor.ca/2006/04/latest-international-scientology.html

        Thanks for teasing out my point about statistics. I’ve noticed that for some time now the CoS press releases don’t mention the number of Scientologists, just but the number of churches, missions and groups, the number of countries, etc…

        Perhaps the disparity between the claims of growth and the reality was becoming too obvious?

  18. Pete
    2009-11-02 at 19:27

    Thanks Jim and Hubbardianen. I got some data also on Marty´s blog.

    “Margaret // November 2, 2009 at 5:32 am

    I’ve recently done a stat analysis from the completions lists of the Church’s
    mags: “Freewinds”, “Source”, “Advance!”, “The Auditor”, “Celebrity” and local
    church mags.

    I concentrated on “Clears made” and “OT VIIIs made”.

    In the 1988-1991 period, the Church (internationally) was making
    between 400-600 Clears per year. Over the last 20 years, that number has been
    trending down, and in the last three years, the Church has been making between
    150 – 250 Clears per year. It’s about a 2/3 drop in the last 20 years. In 2008, there
    were 165 Clears made.

    For OT VIIIs, the drop is about 1/2 in the last 15 years. In the mid to late 90s, the
    Church was making about 400 OT VIIIs per year on average. Over the last
    15 years, it’s dropped to about 1/2 that, and is now in the 200 per year range.
    In 2008, there were 158 OT VIIIs made.

    Per the Church’s own published completions numbers over the last 20
    years, the Church’s key stats are down.”

    • StarsAwait
      2009-11-02 at 21:47

      Pete, what about auditors made? I know this has been down down down on long term trends, but I’d think it’s down even further now because the runway has been extended majorly by the basics. Do you have info on auditors made since the basics release?

      • RJ
        2009-11-03 at 07:06

        Since the basics no but I did a stat analysis of ASHO’s Auditors Mag and found that the stats on Auditors Made crashed after GAT and never recovered!

        In fact its been life support. If it wasn’t for the auditor (un)certainty courses the stat would be completely in Non E!

        I never got around to after the basics (though I may when I have too much time on my hands 🙂 ) but they couldn’t of helped the scene because according to several rumors any auditors in training were being pulled off their auditor training courses to do “the basics” despite the fact that the basic books are covered on their Auditor Training courses!

        Of course as we write Miscavige has driven the final nail in the Training coffin by offering quickie grades now at the Mecca of Technical Perversion.

        • 2009-11-03 at 07:10

          Hey! Someone give RJ too much time on his hands, and quickly!

  19. Heather
    2009-11-02 at 19:38

    Sorry! The boston globe link has confidential material in it.

  20. Overdriver
    2009-11-02 at 19:55

    isene :
    Do you count the US as a democracy?
    But that aside, the US as a whole works much better than the church does today.

    😉

  21. Pavlovian Dogh
    2009-11-02 at 20:49

    It would be very interesting to have a serious count of Scientologists. If the CoS sent out a questionaire for the purpose of really finding out the truth (for themselves) I think the fantasy figures will not be that flattering. There really isn’t any other way of finding out than to ask people, and knock off the extra-polating way of handling truth.

  22. Mockingbird6
    2009-11-02 at 21:19

    The question of statistics is very muddied up. Many (perhaps hundreds or thousands) of the clears from the early 80’s were not actually completed and have been being remedied in the 2000’s. These counted in 1978-80+ but should have been in 2005 or whenever, yet they could not be counted since they were just “repairs”. The numbers of OT’s is even worse–counted as old OT 1-7, and then again as New OT something or other, how do you know which statistic should count when? This second mess would be like, “We sold 500 cars in 2002 but had to recall them in 2003 and give out new ones so our stat for 2003 (adding new sales to reissues) is over 5000 so we are UP.” When is the actual Product achieved? Is it counted twice or three times? What is UP and what is DOWN? It seems all very convenient for those who, as mentioned above, do not wish the true stats to be known.

    • Margaret
      2009-11-03 at 06:04

      Mockingbird, I purposely started the stat analysis of “Clears made” in the mid 80s, because of that confusion over “Clear” in the late 70s and early 80s. By the late 80s and early 90s, however, the Church was making between 400-600 Clears per year. That number has been dropping steadily since then, and today, the Church is making about 1/3 of that, with about 150-250 Clears per year.

  23. Anonymous
    2009-11-02 at 21:21

    isene :Sorry for the link-stripping, Heather The haters & degraders do not realize how much they are working against effectively stopping the abuses with these references to confidential material – it’s an effective turn-off for scientologists still in the church. I hope for people to use more reason and sense than emotional knee-jerk reaction. And I would stress the jerk in “knee-jerk”.
    And to add to your comments on numbers:According to the statistics from freedommag.org, the church has roughly doubled in the last five years. Which would bring it to some 20 million Scientologists world-wide. In the ARIS survey, that would translate to 4800 people answering that they are scientologists, not 6.

    IMO, someone is not necessarily a “hater” or “degrader” because he or she makes reference to some confidential material of Scientology, in this case (since I can’t see the links) possibly only the mention of a forbidden four letter word.

    Considering your purpose in establishing this forum, I can understand why you wouldn’t want to frighten away those still IN, or those who are still believers, but is “haters” and “degraders” really an accurate description? If so, use it, if not… For example, is Mark Bunker a “hater” and “degrader”? I don’t think so.

    • 2009-11-02 at 22:03

      You: “IMO, someone is not necessarily a “hater” or “degrader” because he or she makes reference to some confidential material of Scientology…”
      Me: I never said they necessarily would be. Read the sentence again. It is not A therefore B, hence B therefore A.

      I wasn’t referring to Mark Bunker when I talked about “haters and degraders”.

      • Margaret
        2009-11-03 at 05:55

        IMO, Mark should change the name of his website. He has some good videos, but if he’s interested in reaching most Scientologists, he’d be better off changing the name. … Or at least mirroring his site onto a different name.

      • Heather
        2009-11-03 at 06:18

        The two sources I had cited were ABC News’s Nightline from its 1992 coverage of an interview with David Miscavige and the Boston Globe.

  24. 2009-11-07 at 22:02

    Fair enough. I will just conclude with the irony here considering your blog-post titled “On the fear of the unknown,” in which you say “The video contains a lot beyond the fear of the unknown, though – such as fixed ideas, daring to look …”

    “Fear of the unknown” => “Fear of the [confidential materials]”
    “[F]ixed ideas” => as in “Confidential materials must not be seen prior to proper training”
    “[D]aring to look” => “Daring to look [at the confidential materials]”

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: