“The worst religious text I have ever read.”

[MG 2.0]

Ya' gotta' pick and choose. If you want to go with Hubbard...by all means.

I honestly don't see where he and/or Scientology will bring me or others closer to Christ.

Regards,
MG

If any Christian church has the authority from Christ, it is surely the one that has existed continuously for 2,000 years. There are many cheap imitations, but only one original.

I assume you might be referring to the Catholic Church? If so, are you an active adherent? If not, why?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

-L. Ron. Hubbard

There is no way a man who didn't even graduate from college could compose such an inspirational masterpiece that has helped millions.

Dianetics has been translated into 50 languages and is used in more than 176 nations. Over 83 million copies were sold as of 1989, and just think of how many have more copies have been sold since 1989.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianetics ... tal_Health

Just read a few of the several hundred thousand 5 Star reviews about how Dianetics completely changed people's hearts and minds:

Ann A

5 STARS

January 15, 2024
I originally read this book in 1978. I realized while reading it why I was doing street drugs and completely quit. I also realized why I was having so much trouble with relationships. I am so glad that part of my life is over and I've never regretted it for a second! I've now remained drug free, have been married 26 years to the same wonderful man, have 2 children both now adults and living very well on their own. My quality of life changed so much with this book that I want to share it with others.

18 likes

1 comment

Kelly

5 STARS

February 6, 2009
This book changed the way I view people and myself. It explains exactly why people are the way they are and what causes us to some times act irrationally. It gives an exact technology to help us get rid of the "reactive mind" and all negative aspects of ourselves so we can once again live a rational and happy life. I've seen the miracles of this science and I'm glad to finally have read the book first hand to understand how it all works.

52 likes

2 comments

If you were to subscribe to Hubbard's teachings would they bring you closer to Christ and His Gospel?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

This quote was given without any source, year, or setting:

I am convinced that when men of intelligence can be brought to the point of being sufficiently humble to read again the Book of Mormon, and to take into account the high purposes for which it was written . . . and will stop sneering at such human elements as may be in it, and will examine once more its teachings upon the great theme of salvation through the atonement of the Christ, they can indeed find wisdom and philosophy and truth in its doctrines.

This is from B H Roberts' April 1911 general conference talk, given 10 years before his books were published.

Go back and reread the link I posted after his comments. Also, remember that some of his greatest works were published earlier than "Studies" and that much of what is in Studies was approached/discussed in his earlier works.

I understand that there are some things that B.H. Roberts said that you would rather not hear.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

So Hubbard's writings act as a Second Witness of Christ?

Why would that be needed as we already have the Gospel of Mark? And a third witness, the Gospel of John?

Hubbard does have some insights into Jesus. Perhaps you should read his works. Oh I get it, you're not interest. Just like normal Christians already have their beliefs and aren't interested in the Book of Mormon. They also have 4 witnesses of Christ, if not five, counting Paul.

[dantana]

Yep, the gibberish of the Book of Mormon is certainly in my top ten reasons of why not to believe. Another one being the sheer fact that there even is a Book of Mormon in the form and fashion that it exists in. More specifically, that some want us to believe that God felt the need to enlighten the world as to the tales of Lehi and co. at the exact same time as he felt the need to restore his one true order to the earth that had been dormant for a couple thousand years.

To me, the tales of Lehi and co. have as much relevance to God's one true everlasting order as does, say, tales of lost Atlantis, the moon Quakers and their funny clothes or any episode of Gilligan's island. I see the Book of Mormon being brought forth at the same time as just a lame gimmick. A prop for the shill. The world's first late-night TV scam ad equivalent. - Come see the wonder boy and his magic golden Bible. - We're so sure you'll like your new church we'll throw in proof positive of its truthiness. Read the book, take the test - rub your tummy, pat your head and say the words 'how could it not be true' and we guarantee you twitterpation within at least ten years.

We've had a poster recently using a lot of quotes from B.H. Roberts. Here's another that might be useful to consider:

I am convinced that when men of intelligence can be brought to the point of being sufficiently humble to read again the Book of Mormon, and to take into account the high purposes for which it was written . . . and will stop sneering at such human elements as may be in it, and will examine once more its teachings upon the great theme of salvation through the atonement of the Christ, they can indeed find wisdom and philosophy and truth in its doctrines.

Regards,
MG

My take on it is, The Book of Mormon came out at the same time as the restored eternal order as an attempt to provide hard, physical, tactile evidence for people to believe in J. Smith's new religion. Putting emphasis on the asserted logic that since it was produced in a short amount of time by one un-educated farm boy, it therefore must be supernatural. But, since this holy evidence has enough holes to drive a handcart through, like, this is all just simply J. Smiith's say so, we are left with no actual hard, tactile evidence whatsoever. The whole reason for the Book of Mormon then falls to the 'Moroni's promise' - rub your tummy, pat your head.

So, since the Book of Mormon provides no actual logic driven evidence, there is no more reason for it than there is an episode of Gilligan's island - because one could just more simply have J. Smith in his later writings direct one to - rub your tummy, pat your head...wait for the sure to come tinglies.

[MG 2.0]

So Hubbard's writings act as a Second Witness of Christ?

Why would that be needed as we already have the Gospel of Mark? And a third witness, the Gospel of John?

Hubbard does have some insights into Jesus. Perhaps you should read his works. Oh I get it, you're not interest. Just like normal Christians already have their beliefs and aren't interested in the Book of Mormon. They also have 4 witnesses of Christ, if not five, counting Paul.

The Book of Mormon acts as an additional witness to those that have been given.

Are there some examples of people that you can think of in your own life or in the lives of others that have become disciples of Jesus Christ after having read Dianetics?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

My take on it is, The Book of Mormon came out at the same time as the restored eternal order as an attempt to provide hard, physical, tactile evidence for people to believe in J. Smith's new religion. Putting emphasis on the asserted logic that since it was produced in a short amount of time by one un-educated farm boy, it therefore must be supernatural. But, since this holy evidence has enough holes to drive a handcart through, like, this is all just simply J. Smiith's say so, we are left with no actual hard, tactile evidence whatsoever. The whole reason for the Book of Mormon then falls to the 'Moroni's promise' - rub your tummy, pat your head.

So, since the Book of Mormon provides no actual logic driven evidence, there is no more reason for it than there is an episode of Gilligan's island - because one could just more simply have J. Smith in his later writings direct one to - rub your tummy, pat your head...wait for the sure to come tinglies.

Hi dantana, thanks for your comments and expressing your views in regards to the Book of Mormon.

I think you mentioned earlier that you were a Christian. Would you mind sharing a bit more on how you came to Christ?

Regards,
MH

[Gadianton]

Are there some examples of people that you can think of in your own life or in the lives of others that have become disciples of Jesus Christ after having read Dianetics?

Yes. Every Scientologist. You have some truth, they have more. They add to what you have. But you won't explore that just like most Christians won't give the Book of Mormon a chance.

[MG 2.0]

Are there some examples of people that you can think of in your own life or in the lives of others that have become disciples of Jesus Christ after having read Dianetics?

Yes. Every Scientologist. You have some truth, they have more. They add to what you have. But you won't explore that just like most Christians won't give the Book of Mormon a chance.

Gadianton, you know as well as I do the the answer is no. I think you will need to prove your assertion on this one.

Hubbard's teachings are fundamentally at odds with Christianity. He claimed Jesus as an "implant" (a false memory) and said that Jesus was a legend and that there was no Christ.

I could go on...

I think you're striking out on this one.

On the other hand, the Book of Mormon's primary purpose is to bring souls to Christ.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

If any Christian church has the authority from Christ, it is surely the one that has existed continuously for 2,000 years. There are many cheap imitations, but only one original.

I assume you might be referring to the Catholic Church? If so, are you an active adherent? If not, why?

Regards,
MG

I'm just trying to follow your logic. You seem to be pleading a special case for Mormonism, and not realizing that Christ's church existed long before Joseph Smith. The argument we are making is that Joseph Smith is as superfluous as L Ron Hubbard. And the Book of Mormon and Dianetics are both irrelevant and unnecessary to follow Christ. Inflated claims about how special those books are, are just that, claims.

If you want to follow a charismatic charlatan like Smith, you might as well follow Hubbard while you're at it. They're two peas in the same pod.