Deletions of Non-LRH data
The question of who wrote or compiled any particular Scientology book or issue
can be complex. Take a look at the following key quotation.
'Bulletins and policy letters and articles may be:
'A. Culled from files
B. Obtained newly written by LRH
C. Copied from LRH tapes and rewritten
D. Summarised from A, B and C without injecting new materials, policies or
technology.'
L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL 4 March 65RA II, Rev 7 July 1983, Tech and Policy
Distribution
This is an important point to grasp. With the best will in the world it's still
always possible that a particular compilation may be found to be lacking in some
respect at a later date. As time goes forward we are becoming a lot more
familiar with the data in LRH's taped lectures that had previously been locked
away. This is giving us a broader understanding of how his views changed over
the years on particular issues. See the
MSN Scientology board
for a look at how LRH's views on homosexuality changed through time.
There was another reference to materials being excerpted and rewritten for
specific purposes in 1962:
'If you excerpt tapes or notes, do so over my name, not somebody else's.
'Materials for dissemination to the public can of course be rewritten and
published so long as no confusion as to origin is generated.'
L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL 21 November 1962
Note that LRH includes taped lectures in the above. I once noticed that an
article in Advance had been taken from a taped lecture but that it wasn't quite
as a recalled it. A particular theme had been excerpted and other aspects left
out.
A poster called the Pilot, in April 1998 wrote:
>Note that for a time in the 1970s, bulletins and policies that were
>not by Ron were supposed to be issued as Board Tech Bulletins (BTBs)
>instead of HCOBs, and as Board Policy Letters (BPLs) instead of
>HCOPLs. They took various older HCOBs and HCOPLs ... that were by
>somebody else and reissued them as BTBs and BPLs during this time
>period.
>Earlier practice was to issue HCOBs etc. with other peoples names on
>them (at least sometimes). Later, it was recognized that staff
>tended to ignore BTBs ... so the late 1970s practice was to issue
>everything as HCOBs by Ron.
In July 1998 he also wrote about Class Zero checksheets:
>These checksheets were never by Ron, sometimes being simple black on
>white mimeographed sheets, or Board Policy Letters (BPLs) or HCO
>Policy Letters (HCOPLs) that were not by Ron and which are not in the
>tech volumes.
Those quotes fit in pretty well with the information I have about this area
(although I never came across any black on white mimeographed sheets). They help
to show why some things were cancelled when the management started trying to
strip away all but LRH's own material. The fact that the management has always
made the checksheets for courses is the main reason I don't object to the idea
of the new Golden Age of Tech checksheets. In essence I see them as being pretty
much the same as before - but with more drilling.
Another complaint I saw about a policy cancellation was from a guy called Levi.
He objected to the cancellation of the
student points policy letter.
What had happened was that
HCOPL 18 April 1981, The Standard Student Points
System, was replaced in 1990 with a Scientology Policy Directive, SPD # 6, 6 August 1990, The Standard
Student Points System.
It's been a long while since I saw the 1981 HCOPL but I used to see it every day
and it wasn't written directly by LRH. It had other signatories,
meaning that it wasn't directly written by Ron.
So why was it changed/cancelled?
Possibility One: Levi's theory was that it was a dastardly scheme to get
more points for course completions.
Rather than fudge the issue quietly, they simply tore up LRH's
original HCOPL and put a Scientology Policy Directive in its place. Take that
LRH!
Possibility Two: The 1981 HCOPL wasn't written by LRH, so they quite properly
cancelled it.
As the management still needed an issue to quantify the student
points (50 points for a clay demo, etc) they wrote a directive (junior to a HCO
PL) for the purpose.
For me, the second possibility seems far more likely.
Return to Scientology Materials Index