Best products from r/scientology

I'll comment on both content (fact-checking) and writing structure & style. I realize others have corrected some of the data but I'm going through this as a line-edit so you'll see some repetition.

In particular: Even after the fact checking, if I were grading or judging your article (and without giving away details about my true identity, that "if" would hold some authority), I would give you no better than a C because of statements like "Overall the religion is nothing more than a money grab created by a con man," particularly given that it is obvious you have little knowledge of the subject.

If you are reporting, you report, and you do not opine. The essence of journalism (or anything like it) is to explain the facts without your emotional involvement, and to report how both supporters and detractors see the subject. ("Those in favor of this legislation see it as a way to help the disadvantaged; those opposed feel the monies raised would only benefit the military-industrial complex and never help anybody.") The idea is always to present the facts so that the reader can make an informed decision. That is especially true when you find you feel strongly in one direction or another. (Also, it's more interesting.)

Obviously, many of the people here agree with your sentiment that "Overall the religion is nothing more than a money grab created by a con man." But some people do not share that conclusion, and if you were to write an essay well, you'd reflect their world view as well. And in any case, you don't support your assertion that he was a con man. (He wasn't -- he was far more complex than that -- but you're not alone in that conclusion.)

One of the essay's weaknesses is that you can't decide whether to give a timeline of the CofS's history or to describe it. The combination doesn't work. If I were you I'd focus on the description, even though you tried to grasp it yourself by following the timeline. (That's especially so since you got so much of the timeline wrong.)

For context: I am not a member of the Church of Scientology; I left in 1980. But I practice scientology independently, and I'm among those who expand/change auditing technology to improve its workability. That makes the CofS members feel that I'm a heretic. It also means that I examine what I learned in scientology in detail to determine what part I agree with and what I object to. So take my advice with that in mind.

> Scientology is a new age religion founded in 1954 by L. Ron Hubbard.

As others pointed out: not "new-age" (that term was invented far later) and the date was 1953.

>Hubbard was a well-established science fiction writer with some 140 stories published in pulp fiction comics.

Leave out the "with some 140 stories published in pulp fiction comics." It isn't necessary, it has factual errors (never in comics), and it does not add to the description of Scientology. You either go into Hubbard's background in depth or you describe Scientology. The assignment clearly is to do the latter.

> In 1950 he released a book called Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health which became a best seller on the New York Times. Dianetics is not spiritual in itself but actually more of a psychoanalysis book.

Copyedit: Book titles are italicized, so it should be Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. Also, most people abbreviate long titles like this, and the accepted writing style is to show that abbreviation after the full use of the title, so you'd write "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (DMSMH)" and thereafter refer to the book as DMSMH. That's especially important here given that Dianetics refers to the practice or subject, and DMSMH makes it clear when you're writing about the book itself.

> In the book he spoke of finding the “dynamic principal of existence” which is to survive. The book explains that in our mind we have a section regarded as the reactive mind. Our brain records everything in our lives, and the fears and threats that trigger a survival response are placed in our sub conscious reactive mind. This way we can call upon these memories in similar situation to avoid them and survive. The Scientology website gives the example of a person eating a food that later made them sick. Now when they see that food, the reactive mind reminds them of sickness they felt before in an attempt to no experience that reaction again. These bad memories are known as “engrams”.

Copy edit: In the U.S., periods and commas go inside the punctuation. Thus:

• are known as “engrams.”
  not
  
• are known as “engrams”.
  
  (For more on improving this writing skill, read the very funny and instructive Eats, Shoots & Leaves.)
  
  > The book then explains that we are all thetans, spirits that are immortal and are simply placed into bodies. They are trillions of years old and the creators of the material world which they willed into existence according to the book(URL1).
  
  Incorrect. DMSMH does not discuss thetans or introduce the topic. It very deliberately does not mention past lives (which was a weird-o topic in the very conservative 1950s). Dianetics (both the subject as theory and the auditing as practiced) focused purely on people addressing engrams to reduce their emotional charge, and not on our spiritual existence. It certainly did not go into "how long we've been around" as spiritual beings.
  
  > We as thetans are not pure however according to the book. All of our past lives engrams as well as all our pre-birth and present experiences also develop engrams that have tainted the thetan. The only way to become a pure thetan is through the process of auditing.
  
  Incorrect data. First, again, nothing about thetans is addresses in DMSMH; that's in other, later books.
  
  Second, there's no discussion of "purity" in any manner. Or rather, the concept is that we are each already immensely powerful (and kinda cool) but have collected some bad crap along the way to be cleaned up. Rather like an adorable little kid who plays in the mud; all you need to do is wash off the mud, to begin with, and then later you help the kid learn new skills and abilities (including how to avoid getting dirty in mud puddles). You aren't trying to become something you are not; you're working to become more of what you are.
  
  The key point here is that scientology sees each of us as immortal spiritual beings, called "thetans," as "spirit" and "soul" have so many meanings that they can confuse the issue. For example, in many religions you "have" a soul; in scientology there is a baseline belief that you are a soul. I am a thetan; I don't have one.
  
  > L. Ron Hubbard use to do shows where he would audit audience members. They would then claim to be able to see past lives and even go so far as to experience something called “exteriorization” which is when someone’s soul is separated from their mind and body.
  
  Copy edit: "used to," not "use to."
  
  Copy edit: "when someone’s soul is separated from their mind and body" is poor grammar because "someone" is singular and "their" is plural. Rephrase. It's up to you whether to write, "is released from his mind and body" or " ...his or her mind and body" or whatnot, but fix that.
  
  Line edit: How is the fact of him doing "shows" relevant to describing what Scientology is? This appears to be a case of, "I read it, and it sounded interesting, so I thought I'd include it." The fact of him doing "shows" was never the issue. (They were fun, but that's irrelevant here.) I think the point you mean to make is that from the earliest, Dianetics and Scientology were addressing topics such as past lives and the separation of the body and soul (what scientology calls a thetan).
  
  Also they were never "shows." They were technology demonstrations, done for the same reason that Apple attracts thousands of people to product announcements. That is, "This is something new and we want to show you how it works." It was never about him showing off in a carnival way. This was training: "Let me show you how it's done," for the same reason people watch videos on YouTube to learn how to crochet. You see how an expert does things and then you go off and do it yourself.
  
  You also imply an inaccurate cause-and-effect when you write, "They would then claim to be able to see past lives and ...". From the earliest experiments with Dianetics, and the number of people practicing auditing after reading DMSMH, people ran into past lives. Initially it was frowned upon to run those (like I said, in the 50s this was really weird), but everyone discovered that the only way to address the emotional charge -- to resolve the incident that might have ended with that case of food poisoning -- was to address whatever came up. Similarly, people were going exterior whether or not Hubbard was around.
  
  Your wording in this section betrays a negative attitude that does not belong. You can easily say that people getting auditing reported experiences from past lives, and some said they went exterior (the spiritual being separating from the body) ...without any judgement.
  
  Scientological comment: Yes, I have plenty of past life memories, and I'm generally pretty damned happy when I go exterior. Neither are the aim of what I'm doing, however.
  
  > In 1952 Hubbard released a second book building off of Dianetics called Scientology: A Religious Philosophy, this is where the religion was born. With the release of the book, Hubbard also established a few churches around America for Scientology. This is how his self-help pseudoscience writings became a religion.
  
  Factually incorrect data. Fix that.
  
  [continued...]
  

A book I often recommend to Christians (or those with a strong Christian background) you may find worth checking out is A Course in Miracles its kind of like if the Scientology upper OT levels were written in a Christian context.

The backstory is kind of sketchy I think, but if you can ignore that and just take the text for what it is then its well worth the read. It can be rather dense and can take a long time to get through, especially if you do all the exercises, but it's worth the time and effort in my opinion. I'd generally skip the organizations and such that promote it and go with just the text itself and your own interpretation of it.

Another book worth checking out is Zen Flesh, Zen Bones which was almost like a Bible for me for many years.

It's also worth reading The Principia Discordia for a bit more humorous take on religion - but a religion that many people actually take seriously. Hard-core Discordians throw the best parties, btw.

Religion doesn't have to be the solemn or overly serious thing that its often made out to be. The idea of 'truth' is often thrown around as being objective but there are very few objective truths in my honest opinion and experience. Find out what's true for you and if nothing is true for you then, well, make up something new that is.

>I am a Sea Org member...

I’m very sorry to hear that. Here’s some great Study Tech to check out: https://www.amazon.com/Escaping-Scientology-Insiders-Celebrity-Spirituality-ebook/dp/B075MB8WKC

> I'm surprised they let her stay as long as they did.

'Escaping Scientology: An Insider's True Story: My Journey With the Cult of Celebrity Spirituality, Greed and Power'

"Karen's story will show how people become radicalized by extremists. This story is not about rehashing and reliving the trauma of the past. It's a story coming from a survivor/thriver. I strongly encourage people to read this book carefully and thoughtfully, to realize the degree that Scientology has long been exploiting well-known social influence methods and techniques."

http://www.amazon.com/Going-Clear-Scientology-Hollywood-Prison/dp/0307745309

By any reasonable definition, Scientology is a cult. There is evidence to support the idea that it's founder LRH was cynical and knowingly scammed his followers for the money, there is also evidence that he was a bit mad and really believed in the ideas of Scientology. Perhaps both are true. With regards to what they believe, put simply, they believe that our consciousnesses are actually alien spirits that were put on this planet 75 million years ago as part of some intergalactic war, they refer to these spirits as thetans, and believe that as thetans we move from one body to the next when we die. They also believe that as thetans we harbour the 'engrams' or subconscious memories of traumatic events from millions of years ago. Using a device called an e-meter, Scientologists with the help of an 'auditing partner' believe they are able to access these buried memories of past lives through the use of what they call 'Scientology tech', which is essentially just a literature written by LRH which consists of exercises and questions and procedures for auditors to take someone through. The fundamental texts in the 'tech' are the OT levels, (Operating Thetan). The idea is that by making your way up the 'bridge', (or through the process of completing the OT levels and other texts) you will reach a point where you have complete control over your Thetan powers and will no longer be hindered by the traumas you experienced in past lives. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of Scientology is that in order to get all the way to the top OT level, you end up having to pay a huge amount of money. Each OT level costs 1000s. People have been known to bankrupt themselves in order to get to OT levels. There are also many stories of Scientology higher-ups using many tactics to squeeze as much money out of their followers as possible, tactics that are far beyond what you might see in Christianity for example. A lot of the behaviour you see coming from inside Scientology can easily be described as being quite sinister, and critics say that people who are desperate enough to spend 1000s on OT levels and 'tech' have been brainwashed, or happen to be psychologically vulnerable people who the cult is taking advantage of. This is just the surface of Scientology, and the complete story is utterly shocking and quite interesting. One of the best books I've read on Scientology from the perspective of understanding it's history and basic beliefs is Going Clear by Lawrence Wright: http://www.amazon.com/Going-Clear-Scientology-Hollywood-Prison/dp/0307745309/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1417760332&sr=8-1&keywords=going+clear