Talk:Space opera in Scientology/Archive 2

message: A lot was deleted, with the comment that it was moved to an own article. But where are the Gorilla Goals and the Bear Goals, Body Builder Incident, Bubble Gum Incident, etc? --Tilman 10:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lotsof stuff deleted 

message: The Confederacy that Hubbard wrote about was Xenu's Galactic Confederation. I don't know if that's supposed to be the same as Espinol,  these planets, stars and junk are ours... AndroidCat 20:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Galactic Confederacy and Espinol are two entirely different races of alien critters, and are listed as such in the Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary, first edition. Though the article kept saying "Espinol Confederacy", all the Hubbard sources I've checked just call it "Espinol". wikipediatrix 20:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Update: the Technical Dictionary does refer to it once as "Espinol Confederacy", but also as "Espinol United Stars", among other things. The official Dictionary listing, however, is simply as "Espinol", which seems to be the most common way to refer to these folks. I dunno. wikipediatrix 20:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confederacy 

message: User:Makoshack has been removing the info about the Galactic Fleet, stating that there is "no such lecture" as the cited SHSBC-265, The Time Track. In fact, you can find it listed very plainly on pg.556 of the Dianetics and Scientology Technical Manual (1st edition) and it is described as a "Saint Hill Special Briefing Course Taped Lecture". (In case no one's noticed yet, the 1st edition of the the Dianetics and Scientology Technical Manual is a very handy book to own if you don't already....) wikipediatrix 04:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''The Time Track'' 

message: If we work on standardizing all of the current cites in the article with WP:CIT, it would make things easier to manage and get a better look at the state of the article.  I will do this if I have a chance, but not a priority at the moment.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 07:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardize cites w/ [[WP:CIT]] 

message: Just wondering  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.135.159 (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has this page been vandalized? 

message: These are all comments from someone who does almost exclusively A-Class review, not GA review. I hope everyone remembers that. I can be a real pain about details, too, and I hope everyone notes that as well. 
The quote at the end of the intro needs sourcing. The first paragraph of the "Scientology and science fiction" section has problems. The "However" starting the second sentence does not belong, and the paragraph could probably stand being restructured so that the mention of the higher levels, who are aware of the space opera doctrines, follows more directly the first sentence. Alternately, the first sentence could be moved. The reference to Miscavige later is confusing, as I can't tell whether it's referencing his status as leader or statements by him and others. The public denial should be referenced though. Quote in first paragraph of "Scientology's view of the universe" needs sourcing. "trillenia" in the next paragraph should be explained. I personally haven't a clue what it's supposed to mean. Starting the paragaph with "However" is probably a bad idea too. Next paragraph says Hubbard mentioned other such "incidents". Elaboration of one or more directly thereafter, or at least reference to the later section detailing such incidents, and sourcing would be welcome. All paragraphs should preferably have at least two, and definitely one, citation each. "Scientology's history of the universe" needs sourcing. That's all I can think of off the top of my head. John Carter 17:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: I will be doing the Good Article review on this article - it will take me a day or two to read it and make comments. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 02:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article review 

message: The mass addition of  tags by Andreasegde isn't particularly helpful, especially when they all seem to have been added during four minutes of scanning the article and dropping them on the end of most paragraphs. In some cases, the need for an added reference is obvious, in others (when Hubbard returns to sci-fi writing) there's no clue of what needs to be referenced. In fact, I get the impression that every single paragraph that didn't end in a reference has now been tagged. If so, that really is nonsense. AndroidCat 03:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unhelpful Fact-bombing 

message: There is an in-universe tag on the "Alien civilizations" section, complaining that it is writing about fiction that has been written about as though it was real. I thought the point was that this stuff was claimed as real. Is there a complexity that I don't understand or should the tag go? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I took it off - while I agree the section should be rewritten, that tag on this article is just inflammatory. Thanks for the heads up, Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 18:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In-universe 

message: I found this alleged audio recording of LRH explaining the space opera of Scientology: . Is it authentic? Could it be used, or linked to in this article? -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio record of L. Ron Hubbard 

message: This wikipedia entry says: "These events include the story of Xenu, the ruler of the Galactic Confederacy who brought billions of frozen people to Earth 75 million years ago, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs, creating swarms of disembodied alien souls known as Body Thetans". 
I think there is some information lacking: Hubbard's story says that after the bombing, disembodied aliens (or Thetans), confused and scared, formed swarms who, as disembodied swarms, entered the few remaining physical bodies, thus being "Body Thetans". 
The problem here was, I think, that the Thetans, having forgotten their true nature, unknowingly trapped themselves in bodies, thus creating conflict inside people until some Scientologist telepathically helps them remember who they are and "cross to the other side". If the "many amnesiac souls in few bodies" part is omitted, it's impossible to understand why any Scientologist would want to get rid of them by helping them remember their past.
However, I don't find other sources apart from Wikipedia explaining this, so I would be thankful if someone with more knowledge than me corrected the article (if I'm right, of course).
--Sir3 (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy in story 

message: I've said this many times before on other Scn articles. The so-called "space opera" or science fiction elements of Scientology are not "secret." Many of the lectures that you can buy at any Church bookstore deal with these beliefs. The vast majority of space opera in Scn is right there in the publicly available lecture series.
OT III is not even a fundamental part of Scientology belief and the vast majority of Scientologists aren't even at the OT Levels, let alone Clear. And in regards to space opera, OT III is pretty tame compared to what is discussed in the various hundreds of lectures that anyone can purchase from the Church bookstores. So, OT III is not the cornerstone of Scn space opera beliefs.
What is true is that if someone is new to Scn, staff members and Scientologists aren't supposed to talk about anything that is above that person's level. So if someone is just starting out, say with the Purification Rundown, no one is supposed to talk about anything above that level.
So, all this fuss about OT III which the anti-Scientology crowd keep talking about, it's senseless because you don't have to be at the OT Levels to find out about the space opera elements. Today, when a perosn buys the Basics Books & Lectures, they get A History of Man and Techniquee 88 lectures, which extensively discuss space opera, and space opera is mentioned in some of the other lecture sets that come with the Basics as well. And this is a book/lecture package that is zealously promoted to new people just starting out in Scn.
Laval (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide some 3rd party sources to support your position.  --Rob (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This source says pretty much the same. The paper is also included as a book chapter in . Quote: "Fortunately, with the continued publication (in both audio and literary formats) of Hubbard's many lectures, all of the elements of the myth have been made available and can be accessed by anyone without reference to the confidential documents, though some diligence is required as the references are scattered in a variety of sources. [24]" Footnote 24 (25 in the book) then reads: "Those who wish to understand the cosmology of Scientology should begin with L. Ron Hubbard, The Factors (Los Angeles, Calif.: Bridge Publications, 1990); and the guide to the OT materials, Ron's Legacy of OT (Los Angeles, Calif.: Golden Era Productions, n.d.). Further definition of the cosmology is found in Ron's Journal 67 (Hubbard's annual report for 1967) and in several of his tape sets such as The Dawn of Immortality, The Time Track of Theta, Secrets of the MEST Universe, and A Series of Lectures on the Whole Track." --JN466 03:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy problems 

message: Substituted at 20:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Does the word 'Scripture', in the article title, perhaps contain the implicit assumption that Scientology is a legitimate religion? (something that's disputed) — in that, only religions have 'Scriptures' — it's a loaded word.
Suggested amendment: 'Space opera in Scientology'.
I'm a newbie so hesitant to make this change myself.
Someone else has made a similar point at: Talk:Religious_text#Scientology
thoughts?
--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I usually have a very broad definition of what a "religion" is, so I don't think we should take action for that reason. I tend to agree that concise is better, though. And some of the space opera here isn't from Scientology's scriptures, they're about space opera details that come out while auditing. So, yes, I agree with your proposed change. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I moved it, turns out a previous version of the page was "Space Opera in Scientology doctrine", which made more sense (but was wordier). Mark Arsten (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK cool, nice one Mark.  --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word 'Scripture' in article title 

message: I’m pretty sure the claim that thetans go to Venus after death is wrong, but it would probably be OR to show such. The Forth Invader Force were the latest implanters to be specifically mentioned by Hubbard, and they had their implant station on Mars. Other than the scuffle with the Fifth Hubbard details little about them, and while the fifth occupied Venus there is no mention that they engaged in implanting. The only reference in what came after in the space opera chronology is the Espinol, who currently use earth as a prison but no reference is made to Venus. The claim that Venus is the location for the implant station doesn’t come from any of the Hubbard materials I have, and the only real viable location per Hubbard would be Mars.
I know the Venus claim is sourced, but it just doesn’t seem to match up with what Hubbard wrote unless I’m missing a reference somewhere.--109.76.39.144 (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Afterlife for Scientologists / What will happen to Isaac Hayes' legendary soul?
"Hubbard was quoted (apparently from a lecture given in the 1950s) describing how, after death, a thetan is carried to a "landing station" on Venus, where it is "programmed with lies," put in a capsule, and then "dumped" back on Earth, where it wanders in search of a baby to inhabit."
--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Defining the Theology
"Hubbard said that one of the worst implants happens after a person dies. While Hubbard's story of this implant may seem outlandish to some, he advanced it as a factual account of reincarnation.
"Of all the nasty, mean and vicious implants that have ever been invented, this one is it," he declared during a lecture in the 1950s. "And it's been going on for thousands of years."
Hubbard said that when a person dies, his or her thetan goes to a "landing station" on Venus, where it is programmed with lies about its past life and its next life. The lies include a promise that it will be returned to Earth by being lovingly shunted into the body of a newborn baby.
Not so, said Hubbard, who described the thetan's re-entry this way:
"What actually happens to you, you're simply capsuled and dumped in the gulf of lower California. Splash. The hell with ya. And you're on your own, man. If you can get out of that, and through that, and wander around through the cities and find some girl who looks like she is going to get married or have a baby or something like that, you're all set. And if you can find the maternity ward to a hospital or something, you're OK.
"And you just eventually just pick up a baby."
But Hubbard offered his followers an easy way to outwit the implant: Scientologists should simply select a location other than Venus to go "when they kick the bucket."
So it looks like Venus is the default destination, but Scientologists (although presumably not non-Scientologists) can opt out of it.
--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, what I have now is that "Hubbard taught that thetans left human bodies after they died and went to "implant stations", among which was a location on a planet near Earth, where their memories were erased." Mark Arsten (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Looks like some more details could be added from . Mark Arsten (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, added some more details. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venus 

message: What about all the stuff in Scientology: A History of Man, Route to Infinity, and the Technique 88 lectures? There is a ton of space opera in there, a lot of which is even arguably precursors to the Xenu myth (such as Volcanos and Entities). Those books and lectures are all part of the publicly available doctrine.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.20.10.29 (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but such things aren't currently discussed in public by the church's leadership. The Call of Cthulhu (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aside from a mention in an church glossary 

message: I added a note that the space opera teachings are incompatible with the scientific consensus on the age of the universe: around 14 billion years. This is right after the point about the age of the volcanoes, and right before the sentence that mentions that all religions contain teachings that are incompatible with science, so I think it's well contextualised. --Slashme (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of the universe