An Exit Counselling - repost
Tony McClelland
Regarding Exit Counselling - By Glen
McClelland.
In April 1991, as a Scientologist, I took part
in some exit counselling sessions. The first
of these sessions began early in the
afternoon of Thursday the 25th of April
(ANZAC Day). As well as the two exit
counsellors, my sister, one of my brothers
and both of my parents were present. This
meeting took place at the family home.
The first meeting lasted for six to eight hours
at which point I left to go to work for a few
hours and then home (I was not living with
my parents). After work on Friday I went
back to my parent’s place to meet with the
counsellors and my family again. I spent
Friday night at my parents house. On
Saturday morning we continued the
counselling/discussions. For me this day was
full of many startling revelations about L Ron
Hubbard and the Church of Scientology. My
counsellors had a large amount of
information about the Church, most of it was
written but some on video also. Most of
Saturday was spent reading this material.
After everybody else present had gone to
bed for the night on Saturday I continued
reading. I read right through the night and
finally went to bed at about 7am on Sunday
morning, probably not long before the others
were due to be waking up. I have always
been a bit of a night owl. On Sunday I got up
early in the afternoon. Scientology was
discussed for a few more hours. I left early in
the evening as I wanted to go home and
prepare for the working week ahead. On the
Monday evening, after work, I went to meet
with my counsellors for the last time (they
were flying back to America on Tuesday
morning), to talk some more, ask questions
and see some more of the documentation
they had with them.
My exit counselling sessions took place over
a period of five days. I took part in these
meetings because I chose to, there was no
force (physical or psychological) involved,
much less kidnapping. When it was
convenient for me to stay over at my parents
place, I did (Friday and Saturday nights) and
when it was not convenient, I didn't
(Thursday, Sunday and Monday nights). I
was free to come and go from the presence
of my exit counsellors, my parents and
everybody else for that matter and I did
‘come and go’ as it suited me.
During this period I ate well, particularly
when at my parents place. My parents
served up meals with unusually large
quantities of food and there were usually
between meal snacks available. The food
supply was perhaps a little overdone, the
point being that starvation was not some sort
of tactic used against me. In short, there was
lots of food.
When I get tired the first thing to go is my
ability to read written information. I don't read
well when I am tired. During my meetings
with my counsellors and family much of the
information presented to me was in written
form, when I felt I wasn't absorbing the
information well enough I would call it a
night. On some days I stopped the meeting
even earlier because I didn't want to go late
and affect my day at work the following day. I
did not suffer from sleep depravation either
by my own actions or due to the influence of
another.
Some groups portray exit counselling or
'deprogramming' as it is sometimes called)
as a barbaric act of violence against an
individual. The sole purpose of the claimed
actions being to 'break the faith' of an
individual. Claims of kidnapping, beatings,
food depravation, sleep depravation,
psychological abuse and even rape have
been made. I tend to laugh when I hear
these claims made, for in my experience
they are simply false. the Church of
Scientology holds the view (and has stated it
publically) that I was 'deprogrammed'. Such
a claim, by the Church's own definition,
claims that I was subjected to a list barbaric
acts, yet this is not the case. My Exit
counselling was basically the open
discussion of Scientology and L Ron
Hubbard and the presentation of information
I was unaware of. Much of the time taken
was with me reading information (that was
new to me) about the Church of Scientology.
Incidentally, such a discussion could not
have taken place within the church as the
expression of a negative view on any aspect
of Scientology is defined, by Scientology, to
be "natter" and it is treated as unacceptable,
as such it is quickly and methodically
silenced.
I find it amusing when I hear the Church
persist in making its claims about the violent
and barbaric nature of what it terms
'deprogramming'. The Church continues to
claim that I was deprogrammed even though
I have informed it that no such barbaric acts
took place and even outlined roughly what in
fact had occurred. It seems to suit the
Church to ignore my account of events, even
though I was there and was well placed to
know the facts of what did and did not take
place. The Church has chosen to ignore my
account of events and to adopt the view it
prefers to hold. To hold this view it is forced
to ignore any facts that run contrary to its
adopted view. The amusement I mentioned
earlier comes about when I look at what the
Church claims, look at what I know to be
true, see the false nature of the Church's
claims and I am then left looking at an
organisation that is, at best, making false
claims. From there I reason that the
organisation either believes its claims to be
true or has a vested interest in having other
people believe these claims. It is my opinion
that the latter is the case, the serious nature
of the claims is an indication of just how
desperate how the Church is to have the
general public adopt a negative impression
of exit counselling and those that practice it.
Why is Exit Counselling Needed
Sometimes???
Built into the Scientology belief system is a
belief that only people that are criminals or
insane attack scientology. This belief is fairly
fundamental and for some Scientologists it is
a virtual certainty, or in Scientology parlance,
a "stable datum". To a Scientologist an
attack on the church is tantamount to proof
of a criminal at work. Of course an attack can
vary in severity, the criticism I am making
here, while mild in comparison to what is
deserved, would be treated as an attack.
The reasoning behind this stated belief is
that the Church is the most ethical
organisation in existence and is perceived as
a threat only by those with a criminal nature
that they wish to hide. It then follows that
anybody attacking the Church (even
criticising it) has a vested interest in halting
the Church's activities. This vested interest
being the protection of yet undiscovered
criminal acts. For the Church this is a
convenient to hold, even though it is false,
because form this belief comes what is
probably the Scientologist's most crippling
habit.
When confronted with any sort of negative
criticism of Scientology a Scientologist will
typically fail to confront the substance of the
criticism but instead moves to discover the
source of the criticism. Criticism is seen as
proof of a sick or evil mind at work spreading
such evil information (this thinking is based
on the reasoning given above) the criticism is
usually not evaluated as to whether it is true
or false and what its implications are. Instead
the typical Scientologist will somehow
attempt to discredit the source of the
information.
Once a person has adopted enough of the
Scientology belief system his or her ability to
objectively evaluate a criticism (and I mean
factually based stuff that should be of
concern such as the fact that L Ron Hubbard
suffered from allergy troubles which Dianetic
procedure had failed to treat) levelled at
Scientology is short circuited by the
'appropriate handling' of criticism as briefly
outlined above.
It is very difficult to discuss any negative
aspect of Scientology with a Scientologist.
For a person who doesn't understand how a
Scientologist thinks this task is next to
impossible, just ask anybody who has stood
by helplessly watching a friend getting the
wool pulled over his eyes by the Church.
Most people in the unfortunate position of
seeing a person they care for being 'taken
in' sense that something is wrong, they now
from experience, that it is difficult to
communicate openly with a Scientologist
about issues surrounding the Church, with
every failed attempt the Scientologist
becomes more distant. Most people in this
situation know something is badly wrong,
they just don't understand the phenomenon
well enough to deal with it.
The main task of an Exit counsellor is to get
a Scientologist, or any Cult member for that
matter, to evaluate information about the
group they are involved in in an objective
manner. It is up to the individual to study the
material and to reach his own conclusion. It
is my opinion that, with the exception of a
small few, all Scientologists once acquainted
with the facts surrounding the Church of
Scientology would decide that the pro's are
far outweighed by the con's and leave. I
suppose that is why it is called Exit
counselling, arguably it's not even that, the
Exit counsellor really only has to deal with
the thought stopping techniques that the cult
member has adopted and then present a
more balanced set of information about the
cult than the cult has already given to the
member. In my case, once I was aware of
the thought stopping technique I had
adopted I chose to set aside on the grounds
that I concluded that it was an unobjective
way to deal with information. After all, if
something is true, denying it wont alter the
truth, it will just move you that bit away from
reality. It sounds simple but it is easy to fall
into the trap of believing something because
we want to, not because the evidence
warrants it.
When my Exit counsellors left I still wasn't
convinced one way or the other about
Scientology, I did however, have a healthy
appetite for information about it and started
reading on the subject and took time to
evaluate what I had learned. About two or
three weeks later I told the Church I had
decided to discontinue my membership and I
wanted back the money I had donated (the
Church gives a money back if not satisfied
guarantee in its sales pitch). The events that
occurred from that point on are another
story. The Church acted in a way to
demonstrate yet again that money and then
its image were more important than any
other considerations. It was an is a truly self
serving mechanism, just the way L Ron
Hubbard built it.
Glen McClelland.