A problem with evaluating any changes to LRH's work is that of missing data.
I've found some good references that help explain the changes; however there are
undoubtedly others I haven't found yet.
I have some staff experience which has helped me to explain some things
(see my earlier essay about the change in the number of tapes on the Student Hat); but again there
are other areas I'm not personally familiar with.
Others have the same problem, and this
accounts for some of the worried or indignant posts I've seen.
Also some people are operating on false data. Unless one has the relevant
editions to hand it can take a good deal of effort to really ascertain the truth
or falsehood of any particular accusation. Sometimes the charge is
outdated or simply false. This is then reposted or inserted into a list of
changes by someone who hasn't personally checked them.
If you want a surreal experience, try comparing some of the accusations made
about Introduction to Scientology Ethics to what's actually in the book.
For example, it's true that the definition of knowledge reports is missing from
the list of types of reports. Levi uses this to suggest that the church is
trying to hide the subject of how to write a knowledge report.
Sounds pretty bad.
However he doesn't realize (or perhaps
doesn't choose to mention), that there is now a whole chapter devoted to
the subject (taken from a policy letter issued after the book was first
A knowledge report used to be only one of a number of different types
of ethics report. In modern parlance it has taken on a broader meaning and now
encompasses those other types of reports. Per HCOPL 4 March 65RA II, Rev 7 July
1983, Tech and Policy
Distribution, the earlier reference (the one line definition that is in the admin
dictionary) was blue-pencilled out.
Another example: For Safe, it is 'stomach-sickening' to find that the word
~ethics~ has been removed from the glossary of the 1998 edition. However what he
doesn't mention is that the index has been expanded and vastly improved
so that an individual can easily find the most suitable definition or reference from the text itself.
There are now two extra chapters in the book which go over exactly what Ethics
is in the Scientology philosophy. These were written since the book was first
put together (by the compilations unit). There is far more in the most modern
editions than there used to be.
I think it would be helpful if commentators such as the above pair took a
broader view and looked at the various other possibilities that can more easily
explain any particular change. Instead they seem to jump straight to
accusations of malice. They should try to realize that they are missing some
Return to Scientology Materials Index