If the OT and clear powers were anything but self-delusion or “fake it ’til you make it”, scientology wouldn’t be in the shape it’s in today.
Oh RIGHT, it might just be the same shape if DM had decided to take over and destroy that alternate-universe scientology.
RB, that was hilarious! I agree with Skyler23, a published book of your cartoons is a must.
I think it should be one of the first item on any course checksheet. What do you think? Before or after KSW?
One of my favorites are the stories that RB alludes to at the end. Stories about the OT that misplaced his glasses and found them thanks to his OT powers. Sadly for them, the tellers of these stories never seem to stop and ponder the numerous and obvious problems with these stories:
1. Why would an OT even need glasses? Didn’t Hubbard promise that even a Clear wouldn’t?
2. How could an OT lose something? Not in perfect control of our MEST, are we?
3. Where’s that perfect recall that should make “finding” something totally unnecessary? Because after all, you’ve known where it was all along. Again, mere Clears know that much.
4. How’s that story really different from one any old wog could tell? You lose something, thankfully most of the times you find it. Your car skids and fortunately, 99% of the time it does not end in disaster. (And if it does for you, then one of the other 99 gets to tell his oatee story. Don’t worry, your turn next time…)
5. Where’s the return on investment here? You spent 100s of thousands to go oatee. You invested years of your time. You put up with small-minded fools trying to run every aspect of your life, and submitted to things where you knew you were being taken. You disconnected from people you liked, maybe even loved. All to go oatee. And it saved you the $10-$200 to replace your glasses?
Todd Cray asked: Why would an OT even need glasses? Didn’t Hubbard promise that even a Clear wouldn’t?
I think El Con made promises based on what he believed would attract people at the time. Also, he usually just made one big promise at a time so that people would think such a promise might be realistic.
So in the beginning of the long con, he promised that people who achieved CLEAR would no longer require glasses. Their vision would be restored to a perfect state.
That would really appeal to people who were hearing about this con for the first time. Since he was careful not to make more than one promise at a time, this would make it very easy for the average sucker to try out this con in order to get their vision restored.
By the time people learned the promise was just a lie, he would be off and running with several other promises and the mind control would have a very strong hold on all the suckers and things would be off and running. It would be far too late for anyone to stand up and shout, “The fat emperor is not wearing any clothes!”
People seem to think that Tubby was some kind of genius. But no genius level thinking was ever required. He was just sufficiently savvy in the way cons and mind control worked to come up with some schemes that worked well enough for his purposes.
Unfortunately for all the innocent victims, the world had not previously seen a con that operated exactly like this fake religion con and by the time people started screaming about it … it was just too late. To quote Tom Petty, “The hook was in real deep!”
Of course, Tom Petty was not talking about El Con or his fake religion. That quote was about Rock & Roll and Petty was talking about himself. But it’s an excellent quote and it applies very well to people who get involved with Hubbard’s Con.
Tubby WAS a genius…. In the long con: getting people to pay for results which never materialized. IF I’d gotten a portion of what he promised for ‘clear’, I’d probably still be a scientologist. AND I’d be rich & happy, too.
otherles asked:
“Why would an OT drive a truck?”
A: For the money.
A2: Also so the registrars couldn’t bother him, call him at home or “knock him up” at home.
A3: For the relaxing peace & quiet.😇
RB you must be someone I would certainly have a lot of big laughs with. For those who haven’t paid attention to it, the last page of the magazine promotes Ron Miscavige’s book Ruthless.
I remember working with OTs in absurd situations but I’ve never seen anything solved with OT powers. It was more desperation and lots of kicks in the ass.
LMR, you are so right. I have suggested and requested that RB take all of his comic strips and submit them to some publishers and see if he can get them published.
I would love to have a book containing all of these wonderful cartoons in my living room.
Well Golden Era Productions has ability to print, maybe they could do it.
On a serious note Skyler, since you quoted Tom Petty, ( I am still so very sad he died way too soon) have you ever heard a song he did in the very early days with The Heartbreakers called “Gator on the Lawn”?
I was fortunate to have seen him and the band perform about 3 times!
It’s great that SOMEone noted the truth of the story for that group, at least. I’m willing to bet he isn’t a member of that FaceBook group any more, or won’t be for much longer.
I think I recall reading a similar OT success story about 30 years ago. The OT was driving and a car in front of that person was about to crash into another car, he or she used their OT abilities to move the car before it wrecked.
What’s really embarrassing is that I actually believed the story at the time.
Very funny RB. I don’t think an actual discussion of OT ‘abilities’ and Lron’s cosmology would ever take place in the $cienverse. Verbal tech and all. Giggle…
Zee, in my experience, broadcasting the OT phenomena like that was usual & expected. Can’t beat the PR value for those within scn. Bet many who climbed the bridge to total destruction were chasing the dreams of gaining just those same phenomena.
Mr B.S. was driving an eighteen wheeler at 01:00 in Wyoming.
How did he manage to pay for his OT Levels while making it as a blue collar job?
Was he driving out of his lawful schedule, just to earn some extra bucks?
The clear answer is BS!
I think I know BS.
The Oh TEE BS was a high paid engineer until the mind fuckery of Scientology somehow made him confused and feel bad about being that therefore wasting his time analyzing data, chemicals, blood etc for various companies instead of clearing the planet so he quit his job and joined staff – the winning team. ( NOT! Big mistake. )
He put a Scientological Solution on a Scientology Problem and that is a huge mistake because it created a disaster for his life of epic proportions, which is the intention by LRH.
He is a died in the wooler. He wrote up chits on his kid and ex wife for various crimes against humanity; criticizing LRH, Scientology and David Miscavige along with not wanting to go broke for the IAS, not going on course and not believing there are states of clear and OT.
It shattered his life.
Divorced, bankrupted and foreclosed on, he got the over the road truckin job cuz he could get away from his misery.
He inherited a bunch of money and spent that on his Bridge to La La Land, where deslusions of grandeur abound.
otherles asked:
“How do I respond to nonsense without using obscene language?”
It’s okay to say the obscenities out loud while typing other things.
It might also be well to “toke up” to take the edge off. I don’t KNOW, but the thought occurred.
Quintin Hubbard was gay and ran away from the Hubbard home in Florida one day. His drive ended a little outside of Las Vegas, NV where he committed suicide in his car. When this was announced to his dad he angrily said; “why is he trying to ruin me?” Not an ounce of concern about his son, only his own public relations image. Having known Quintin and the family I am certain his father hated the fact he was gay. The cult believes everything Hubbard ever said is the absolute and unquestionable truth.
Can’t be showing off your OT powers because the Orgs would be crushed under the stampede of people trying to sign up. Or something.
Also OT super powers can be suppressed very easily – only takes one kid to ask why you’ve got no clothes on and the OT Cloak of Invisibilityness disappears in a flash.
A very fair detailed explanation of the absurdity of Scientology OT powers. Advance Magazine was full of lies and distortions. Hubbard was relying on a 400 person survey conducted in Britain to support his OT abilities. A psych professor did it over the radio from Oxford University in the 1960’s That was Hubbard;s proof for exteriorization!
Hmmm …. very strange. If you look at the bottom of the OT Phenomena story, you will see the initials, “B.S.”.
But both of these dummies seem to have failed to get the joke. Someone included the initials “B.S.” to let us “wise guys” in on the joke that the story was just …. Bull Shit!.
If ANY of the scientology ‘states’, clear, OT, etc. were real, ‘scientology’ wouldn’t be in the state it’s in, and I, for one, would be “in” still, not out here with recurring instances of schadenfreude as DM shoots blanks or foot-bullets.
The only thing scn does well is explain why its ‘tech’ doesn’t work as advertized.
“Sexual orientation is not a criteria for membership in the Church. The first statement in the Creed of the Church of Scientology is that “All men of whatever race, color or creed were created with equal rights.””
Note: The Creed of the Church of Scientology does not say anything about sexual orientation. The Church of Scientology’s reasoning is non-sequitur.
In any event, we have questions.
Sexual Orientation Questionnaire for the Church of Scientology.
1) Does the Church of Scientology perform gay and lesbian weddings? If the church has not done so to date, is the Church of Scientology willing to perform gay and lesbian weddings?
2) Does the Church of Scientology support adoption by gay and lesbian couples?
3) If the Church of Scientology supports adoption by heterosexual individuals, does the Church of Scientology also support adoption by gay and lesbian individuals?
4) Can a gay or lesbian person become and remain a member of the Church of Scientology in good standing without being required to be celibate, without being required to eventually become heterosexual, and while continuing to have gay or lesbian sex subject only to the same ethical requirements applied to heterosexuals?
5) Can a gay or lesbian person become and remain Clear in good standing without being required to be celibate, without being required to eventually become heterosexual, and while continuing to have gay or lesbian sex subject only to the same ethical requirements applied to heterosexuals?
6) Can a gay or lesbian person become and remain OT 8 in good standing without being required to be celibate, without being required to eventually become heterosexual, and while continuing to have gay or lesbian sex subject only to the same ethical requirements applied to heterosexuals?
7) Can a gay or lesbian person become and remain a non-Sea Org staff member in good standing without being required to be celibate, without being required to eventually become heterosexual, and while continuing to have gay or lesbian sex subject only to the same ethical requirements applied to heterosexuals?
8) Can a gay or lesbian person become and remain a Sea Org member in good standing without being required to be celibate, without being required to eventually become heterosexual, and while continuing to have gay or lesbian sex subject only to the same ethical requirements applied to heterosexuals?
9) Can a gay or lesbian person become and remain a member of the clergy of the Church of Scientology in good standing without being required to be celibate, without being required to eventually become heterosexual, and while continuing to have gay or lesbian sex subject only to the same ethical requirements applied to heterosexuals?
10) Is it TRUE that the Church of Scientology does NOT perform, endorse, advocate or accept the validity of any form of gay or lesbian conversion therapy, or any form of therapy or spiritual practice or technology intended, designed or that has the purpose of changing a gay or lesbian person’s sexual orientation from gay or lesbian to heterosexual?
Ver. 3.0
NOTE: In Version 3.0 above, I revised question number 10 to (perhaps awkwardly) include a double negative. I did this so that the Church of Scientology will pass as not discriminating against gay and lesbian people if and only if all of the questions are answered “yes.” I believe that overall the questionnaire is less confusing that way, and less likely cause question number 10 to be answered inaccurately.
ISN, gay or lesbian persons CAN if they are a celebrity like Catherine Bell, and probably also if they are a rich “whale”. Rank and file members, not so much. In totalitarian communist systems, the “first among equals” were those who enjoyed entitlements beyond the ideology of equal treatment and the abolishment of class privilege — and typically, Hubbard’s Scientology recreates much of the sort of Soviet-style system he loved to create.
I would suggest changing the wording to “can any gay or lesbian member” for all those after the initial #4.
Also, you might consider to add asking Scientology to provide examples of staff, Sea Org and “ministers” who are outspoken gays or lesbians and make them available for interview – while some would obviously chose to keep their privacy, if the CofS has a normal population distribution and no policies or doctrines that make people ashamed, then there should inevitably the those willing to speak, especially among a group that claims to help people overcome barriers and believes that “communication is the universal solvent”.
I like the way you worded #10 as it eliminates their weaseling their way around not trying to reform those few celebrities, or whales, while still treating the rank and file repressively.
Come to think of it, I would also suggest adding a question that addresses preferential treatment of celebrities and “whales”. I think it would help point out to readers an important hypocrisy and propaganda trick of the CofS.
Thank you for the observation and the advice. I think the phrase “can any gay or lesbian member” might still be ambiguous — i.e., interpreted that if a celebrity can ,the requirement of “any” is satisfied. What do you think of ” “can all gay or lesbian members?”
That was by far the best RB I have read! I am hoping the blond guy might be out of the cult soon with his critical thinking skills.
Bravo, Bravo RB.
If the OT and clear powers were anything but self-delusion or “fake it ’til you make it”, scientology wouldn’t be in the shape it’s in today.
Oh RIGHT, it might just be the same shape if DM had decided to take over and destroy that alternate-universe scientology.
RB, that was hilarious! I agree with Skyler23, a published book of your cartoons is a must.
I think it should be one of the first item on any course checksheet. What do you think? Before or after KSW?
Does the cherch marry shrimps?
Asking for a friend.
It must. DM was married for a time, may still be legally.(Inquiring minds want to know)
WHERE’S SHELLY?
LOL!! Unfortunately true.
Classic!
One of my favorites are the stories that RB alludes to at the end. Stories about the OT that misplaced his glasses and found them thanks to his OT powers. Sadly for them, the tellers of these stories never seem to stop and ponder the numerous and obvious problems with these stories:
1. Why would an OT even need glasses? Didn’t Hubbard promise that even a Clear wouldn’t?
2. How could an OT lose something? Not in perfect control of our MEST, are we?
3. Where’s that perfect recall that should make “finding” something totally unnecessary? Because after all, you’ve known where it was all along. Again, mere Clears know that much.
4. How’s that story really different from one any old wog could tell? You lose something, thankfully most of the times you find it. Your car skids and fortunately, 99% of the time it does not end in disaster. (And if it does for you, then one of the other 99 gets to tell his oatee story. Don’t worry, your turn next time…)
5. Where’s the return on investment here? You spent 100s of thousands to go oatee. You invested years of your time. You put up with small-minded fools trying to run every aspect of your life, and submitted to things where you knew you were being taken. You disconnected from people you liked, maybe even loved. All to go oatee. And it saved you the $10-$200 to replace your glasses?
Todd Cray asked: Why would an OT even need glasses? Didn’t Hubbard promise that even a Clear wouldn’t?
I think El Con made promises based on what he believed would attract people at the time. Also, he usually just made one big promise at a time so that people would think such a promise might be realistic.
So in the beginning of the long con, he promised that people who achieved CLEAR would no longer require glasses. Their vision would be restored to a perfect state.
That would really appeal to people who were hearing about this con for the first time. Since he was careful not to make more than one promise at a time, this would make it very easy for the average sucker to try out this con in order to get their vision restored.
By the time people learned the promise was just a lie, he would be off and running with several other promises and the mind control would have a very strong hold on all the suckers and things would be off and running. It would be far too late for anyone to stand up and shout, “The fat emperor is not wearing any clothes!”
People seem to think that Tubby was some kind of genius. But no genius level thinking was ever required. He was just sufficiently savvy in the way cons and mind control worked to come up with some schemes that worked well enough for his purposes.
Unfortunately for all the innocent victims, the world had not previously seen a con that operated exactly like this fake religion con and by the time people started screaming about it … it was just too late. To quote Tom Petty, “The hook was in real deep!”
Of course, Tom Petty was not talking about El Con or his fake religion. That quote was about Rock & Roll and Petty was talking about himself. But it’s an excellent quote and it applies very well to people who get involved with Hubbard’s Con.
Tubby WAS a genius…. In the long con: getting people to pay for results which never materialized. IF I’d gotten a portion of what he promised for ‘clear’, I’d probably still be a scientologist. AND I’d be rich & happy, too.
Skyler gave us:
““The fat emperor is not wearing any clothes!”
That is an image I did NOT need to see.
Why would an OT drive a truck?
otherles asked:
“Why would an OT drive a truck?”
A: For the money.
A2: Also so the registrars couldn’t bother him, call him at home or “knock him up” at home.
A3: For the relaxing peace & quiet.😇
RB you must be someone I would certainly have a lot of big laughs with. For those who haven’t paid attention to it, the last page of the magazine promotes Ron Miscavige’s book Ruthless.
I remember working with OTs in absurd situations but I’ve never seen anything solved with OT powers. It was more desperation and lots of kicks in the ass.
LMR, you are so right. I have suggested and requested that RB take all of his comic strips and submit them to some publishers and see if he can get them published.
I would love to have a book containing all of these wonderful cartoons in my living room.
Well Golden Era Productions has ability to print, maybe they could do it.
On a serious note Skyler, since you quoted Tom Petty, ( I am still so very sad he died way too soon) have you ever heard a song he did in the very early days with The Heartbreakers called “Gator on the Lawn”?
I was fortunate to have seen him and the band perform about 3 times!
Send that dude to ‘Ethics’ for admitting to the other guy there is no ‘Ideal Org’ in Wyoming.
Is there ANY org in Wyoming? Or even a Franchise™?
The following is relevant to Mike’s article “L. Ron Hubbard Racist Statements.”
A shoop of a Ron book cover by Jeffrey Jay in the Facebook Group Scientology Invasion of the Black Community.
https://facebook.com/groups/ScientologyInvasion.of.the.BlackCommunity/permalink/3920363894711723/
Memorialized with a screenshot on ESMBR at:
https://exscn2.net/threads/l-ron-hubbard-racist-statements.3058/post-87081
/
It’s great that SOMEone noted the truth of the story for that group, at least. I’m willing to bet he isn’t a member of that FaceBook group any more, or won’t be for much longer.
Gotta love the back of the magazine has Ron Miscavige Ruthless book cover.😃👍
I think I recall reading a similar OT success story about 30 years ago. The OT was driving and a car in front of that person was about to crash into another car, he or she used their OT abilities to move the car before it wrecked.
What’s really embarrassing is that I actually believed the story at the time.
Very funny RB. I don’t think an actual discussion of OT ‘abilities’ and Lron’s cosmology would ever take place in the $cienverse. Verbal tech and all. Giggle…
Zee, in my experience, broadcasting the OT phenomena like that was usual & expected. Can’t beat the PR value for those within scn. Bet many who climbed the bridge to total destruction were chasing the dreams of gaining just those same phenomena.
Mr B.S. was driving an eighteen wheeler at 01:00 in Wyoming.
How did he manage to pay for his OT Levels while making it as a blue collar job?
Was he driving out of his lawful schedule, just to earn some extra bucks?
The clear answer is BS!
I think I know BS.
The Oh TEE BS was a high paid engineer until the mind fuckery of Scientology somehow made him confused and feel bad about being that therefore wasting his time analyzing data, chemicals, blood etc for various companies instead of clearing the planet so he quit his job and joined staff – the winning team. ( NOT! Big mistake. )
He put a Scientological Solution on a Scientology Problem and that is a huge mistake because it created a disaster for his life of epic proportions, which is the intention by LRH.
He is a died in the wooler. He wrote up chits on his kid and ex wife for various crimes against humanity; criticizing LRH, Scientology and David Miscavige along with not wanting to go broke for the IAS, not going on course and not believing there are states of clear and OT.
It shattered his life.
Divorced, bankrupted and foreclosed on, he got the over the road truckin job cuz he could get away from his misery.
He inherited a bunch of money and spent that on his Bridge to La La Land, where deslusions of grandeur abound.
I read the “BS” at the end of that fanciful story as a commentary of it. Only later did I guess it was the guy’s initials.
How do I respond to nonsense without using obscene language?
otherles asked:
“How do I respond to nonsense without using obscene language?”
It’s okay to say the obscenities out loud while typing other things.
It might also be well to “toke up” to take the edge off. I don’t KNOW, but the thought occurred.
Nice one RB! You have totally wrapped up the state of Ohhh Tea.
Quintin Hubbard was gay and ran away from the Hubbard home in Florida one day. His drive ended a little outside of Las Vegas, NV where he committed suicide in his car. When this was announced to his dad he angrily said; “why is he trying to ruin me?” Not an ounce of concern about his son, only his own public relations image. Having known Quintin and the family I am certain his father hated the fact he was gay. The cult believes everything Hubbard ever said is the absolute and unquestionable truth.
Can’t be showing off your OT powers because the Orgs would be crushed under the stampede of people trying to sign up. Or something.
Also OT super powers can be suppressed very easily – only takes one kid to ask why you’ve got no clothes on and the OT Cloak of Invisibilityness disappears in a flash.
A very fair detailed explanation of the absurdity of Scientology OT powers. Advance Magazine was full of lies and distortions. Hubbard was relying on a 400 person survey conducted in Britain to support his OT abilities. A psych professor did it over the radio from Oxford University in the 1960’s That was Hubbard;s proof for exteriorization!
Hmmm …. very strange. If you look at the bottom of the OT Phenomena story, you will see the initials, “B.S.”.
But both of these dummies seem to have failed to get the joke. Someone included the initials “B.S.” to let us “wise guys” in on the joke that the story was just …. Bull Shit!.
If ANY of the scientology ‘states’, clear, OT, etc. were real, ‘scientology’ wouldn’t be in the state it’s in, and I, for one, would be “in” still, not out here with recurring instances of schadenfreude as DM shoots blanks or foot-bullets.
The only thing scn does well is explain why its ‘tech’ doesn’t work as advertized.
O/T. The Church of Scientology says: “Sexual orientation is not a criteria for membership in the Church.” We have questions.
—————-
The Church of Scientology says:
https://twitter.com/ScientologyTV/status/1387879716669911043
“Sexual orientation is not a criteria for membership in the Church. The first statement in the Creed of the Church of Scientology is that “All men of whatever race, color or creed were created with equal rights.””
Note: The Creed of the Church of Scientology does not say anything about sexual orientation. The Church of Scientology’s reasoning is non-sequitur.
In any event, we have questions.
Sexual Orientation Questionnaire for the Church of Scientology.
1) Does the Church of Scientology perform gay and lesbian weddings? If the church has not done so to date, is the Church of Scientology willing to perform gay and lesbian weddings?
2) Does the Church of Scientology support adoption by gay and lesbian couples?
3) If the Church of Scientology supports adoption by heterosexual individuals, does the Church of Scientology also support adoption by gay and lesbian individuals?
4) Can a gay or lesbian person become and remain a member of the Church of Scientology in good standing without being required to be celibate, without being required to eventually become heterosexual, and while continuing to have gay or lesbian sex subject only to the same ethical requirements applied to heterosexuals?
5) Can a gay or lesbian person become and remain Clear in good standing without being required to be celibate, without being required to eventually become heterosexual, and while continuing to have gay or lesbian sex subject only to the same ethical requirements applied to heterosexuals?
6) Can a gay or lesbian person become and remain OT 8 in good standing without being required to be celibate, without being required to eventually become heterosexual, and while continuing to have gay or lesbian sex subject only to the same ethical requirements applied to heterosexuals?
7) Can a gay or lesbian person become and remain a non-Sea Org staff member in good standing without being required to be celibate, without being required to eventually become heterosexual, and while continuing to have gay or lesbian sex subject only to the same ethical requirements applied to heterosexuals?
8) Can a gay or lesbian person become and remain a Sea Org member in good standing without being required to be celibate, without being required to eventually become heterosexual, and while continuing to have gay or lesbian sex subject only to the same ethical requirements applied to heterosexuals?
9) Can a gay or lesbian person become and remain a member of the clergy of the Church of Scientology in good standing without being required to be celibate, without being required to eventually become heterosexual, and while continuing to have gay or lesbian sex subject only to the same ethical requirements applied to heterosexuals?
10) Is it TRUE that the Church of Scientology does NOT perform, endorse, advocate or accept the validity of any form of gay or lesbian conversion therapy, or any form of therapy or spiritual practice or technology intended, designed or that has the purpose of changing a gay or lesbian person’s sexual orientation from gay or lesbian to heterosexual?
Ver. 3.0
NOTE: In Version 3.0 above, I revised question number 10 to (perhaps awkwardly) include a double negative. I did this so that the Church of Scientology will pass as not discriminating against gay and lesbian people if and only if all of the questions are answered “yes.” I believe that overall the questionnaire is less confusing that way, and less likely cause question number 10 to be answered inaccurately.
*************************
Background:
VIDEO: Why You Can’t Be Gay In Scientology.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=_-lkYwv-nHQ
Scientology Homophobia
https://www.mikerindersblog.org/scientology-homophobia/
Scientology’s Homophobia: Even the Church’s Token Gay Guy Was Disgusted
https://www.villagevoice.com/2012/09/02/scientologys-homophobia-even-the-churchs-token-gay-guy-was-disgusted/
Memorialized with three screenshots on ESMBR at:
https://exscn2.net/threads/the-church-of-scientology-says-sexual-orientation-is-not-a-criteria-for-membership-in-the-church-we-have-questions.3088/
/
ISN, gay or lesbian persons CAN if they are a celebrity like Catherine Bell, and probably also if they are a rich “whale”. Rank and file members, not so much. In totalitarian communist systems, the “first among equals” were those who enjoyed entitlements beyond the ideology of equal treatment and the abolishment of class privilege — and typically, Hubbard’s Scientology recreates much of the sort of Soviet-style system he loved to create.
I would suggest changing the wording to “can any gay or lesbian member” for all those after the initial #4.
Also, you might consider to add asking Scientology to provide examples of staff, Sea Org and “ministers” who are outspoken gays or lesbians and make them available for interview – while some would obviously chose to keep their privacy, if the CofS has a normal population distribution and no policies or doctrines that make people ashamed, then there should inevitably the those willing to speak, especially among a group that claims to help people overcome barriers and believes that “communication is the universal solvent”.
I like the way you worded #10 as it eliminates their weaseling their way around not trying to reform those few celebrities, or whales, while still treating the rank and file repressively.
Come to think of it, I would also suggest adding a question that addresses preferential treatment of celebrities and “whales”. I think it would help point out to readers an important hypocrisy and propaganda trick of the CofS.
Thank you for the observation and the advice. I think the phrase “can any gay or lesbian member” might still be ambiguous — i.e., interpreted that if a celebrity can ,the requirement of “any” is satisfied. What do you think of ” “can all gay or lesbian members?”
/