It's ok. You don't have to apologize. It took a lot of balls to express yourself the way you did in your OP.
What I'd really like is for someone doing Scientology and convinced of its tech to come in and offer an opinion. Not someone from OSA or some other PR person, but a regular person. At the same time, I've heard ex-Scienos tell how certain sites are blocked (usually with Net Nanny), so I don't know if my request is even feasible.
I understand.
The problem you get when trying to find out about it from a regular member is that, more often than not, they really have no idea what Scientology is.
I will try to say this without using the usual wall of text. It could be a whole book in itself.
L Ron Hubbard was a very intuitive person. That is no fucking joke. If he knew what problem you were trying to fix, he could get you into it right then and there.
He put a lot of life lessons into context (i.e. communication, moral codes, drugs, relationships, pain, education, business, and a million other issues). And when someone is having real trouble with a specific area, they can read something Hubbard said about it. If what they read gives them more knowledge about themselves, then they want more. And a guy like me could sell that person ANYTHING.
From that point you enter the scam. The power of suggestion from LRH and others.
The "secret OT information" is kept secret because if you tell someone that BEFORE they find something they really like, they wont listen. And they WONT pay you the millions it takes to get there. It's just dangling a carrot in your face. If you see that it isn't a carrot, you wont try to eat it.
But perhaps I can perform a miracle here and share something I liked from Hubbard.
Most scientologists won't recognize this because... well frankly, they don't know more than 1 or 2% of his works. Most people couldn't get through a single page of his "research" without spending a day in the dictionary (a normal one and a sci-term dictionary).
During my time with the Sea Org, there was an R&D (research and discovery) series, transcribing his old lectures (during the 50's and 60's). I think the specific volume is R&D lucky #13. And in it, he talks about the subject of love. The volume is huge! And this was like finding a needle in a haystack. Just a paragraph or two. But I had never heard anyone quote it before or since.
Now, I don't know about you but, I have never otherwise been explained a proper definition of "love" before. People just say "it's something you can't define, only feel." I had felt it before reading this, but never defined it for myself. I believe many people have the same issue with the word.
Here's what Hubbard basically said. He said love itself isn't a single emotion. It's a compound emotion. Meaning an emotion you get when combining one or more emotions. Which is why love isn't on his emotional "tone scale".
He said that love is the combination of admiration and sympathy.
Now think about that for a second. Think about how people use the word "love". "I love that band!" That's the admiration. Now think about puppy love like "aww poor baby!"
Now think about every person you've ever been in love with. What did you admire about them? What about the person made you feel sorry for them?
Like this...
"She's so beautiful and smart and funny and she likes everything I like (admiration). But she was abused as a child (sympathy). I respect her so much for pulling through (more admiration). She has a mountain of debt from student loans (more sympathy). But she worked her way through medical school (more admiration), before getting sick (more sympathy), and recovering (admiration). Even though she ruined her credit with medical bills (sympathy), she still stays so positive (admiration)...
I LOVE HER!"
You see?
*edit incoming*