Quote
barabara
Jesus said that the only way to reach God was through him.

Are you saying that the only way to reach God is through AA?

Or are you saying that AA teaches that the only way to reach God is through Jesus?

Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.

I thought AA was about staying sober.

So, is AA religious, after all?

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. I'm talking about confessing sins, the spiritual rebirth, ministering to others, forgives of others, all ideas which you appear to be at odds with when it is practiced in AA.

The big book says that our real purpose in AA is to fit ourselves to be of maximum service to God and to the people around us.

Colter

Quote

For someone to commit that much time to a negative assault on the program of AA epitomizes self will run riot.

I don't consider this to be an "assault on the program of AA".

Quote

Weather one considers it a religion, a spiritual fellowship or a self help group, persecution of it's members by referring to us as "predators" or "indoctrinated cult members" is persecution:

When did anyone on this thread ever accuse[b:fe4a49ee01] you,[/b:fe4a49ee01] "colter", of being a predator?
When did anyone here say that [b:fe4a49ee01]all AA members[/b:fe4a49ee01] are predators?

If anyone did say that, it [b:fe4a49ee01]would[/b:fe4a49ee01] be persecution. But no one here has said that all 12 steppers are predators.

Are you?

Truthfully, "colter", the reason I have been so tenacious in defending my opinions is because you have been so intent on invalidating them.

If you stop accusing us of "misrepresentation" and "not working our steps", we might not have such a strong incentive to defend ourselves.

That was always my biggest objection to AA dogma; being told we hadn't "worked our steps" whenever we questioned the program or the behavior of its members.

Also, just look at all the anti-AA information I found out about because of your posts.
I was completely unaware of the secular revolt and SOS, and probably would never have gone back and found those damaging references to "the memo" and Audrey Kishline's "relapse" if it wasn't for you.

Maybe that's why AA says claims to have no opinion about outside issues.

As promised, here is a brief rundown of SOS:

Contrary to other claims, SOS is not "AA without God." SOS is a group where religious affiliation does not matter. They accept Christains, atheists, Jews, Wiccans, Pagans, Muslims, you name it. They just don't feel that religion needs to be part of the recovery process. From their literature: "We choose to make sobriety a separate issue from our religion."

Both SOS and AA assert that only an addict who wants help will be successful. I don't think there's much room for debate there. There are no "Steps" in SOS, they practice what is called "Cognative sobriety." Before we start up with the pooh-poohing of cognative sobriety, I will say that cognative therapy has been proven successful in aiding addicts in danger of relapse. It teaches the addict to examine what makes them use and examine alternatives. It also teaches them to avoid situations and people who make it easy to use. Both SOS and AA also contend that to there is no such thing as social use when it comes to an addict.

SOS has suggested guidelines for staying sober which are:
* To break the cycle of denial and achieve sobriety, we first acknowledge that we are alcoholics or addicts.
* We reaffirm this truth daily and accept without reservation the fact that, as clean and sober individuals, we cannot and do not drink or use, no matter what.
* Since drinking or using is not an option for us, we take whatever steps are necessary to continue our Sobriety Priority lifelong.
* A quality of life-"the good life"- can be achieved. However, life is also filled with uncertainties. Therefore, we do not drink or use regardless of feelings, circumstances, or conflicts.
* We share in confidence with each other our thoughts and feelings as sober, clean individuals.
* Sobriety is our Priority, and we are each responsible for our lives and our sobriety.

Where AA says "90 meetings in 90 days", SOS says "Attend as many meetings as you can." They also have a 24-hour support chat. Meetings are self-supporting much the same as an AA meeting. The attendees give what they can and the money is used to cover expenses. SOS also suggests becoming friendly with others who are now sober and looking to them for support. They do not have a sponsor program.

In SOS, the individual claims personal responsiblity for their addiction. They also take personal responsibility for their sobriety. This is a point that Mr. Christopher made several times during our conversations. There is no "working the steps" in SOS because there are no steps. SOS also suggests that participants study any and all information available to them on the subject of addiction. They don't ask that anybody just take their word for it.

I haven't found much on abuse in SOS meetings. That's not to say that it never, ever occurs. I am only saying that I found no mention of it. It is also a subject that Mr. Christopher and I discussed, he does not tolerate it.

Of all of the groups I contacted during my research both for school and for curiosity, SOS was the only group to spare me more than 10 minutes. The people at RR were nice enough, but they had a rather dim view of therapy which was a tad offputing.

So, that's my "Readers Digest" version of SOS. It was long in coming becuase I had a final this week and several projects to finsih. I go to school year round, so no breaks for me.

If anyone is interested, I could start a thread on SOS. It has been suggested, but I'd like to see if there's any interest. I also would like to make clear that I am not a spokesperson for SOS nor am I affliliated with them.

Quote

That was always my biggest objection to AA dogma; being told we hadn't "worked our steps" whenever we questioned the program or the behavior of its members.

That is why I first felt XA was cultish. I was told what and how to think. What and how to read.

Quote

Also, just look at all the anti-AA information I found out about because of your posts.
I was completely unaware of the secular revolt and SOS, and probably would never have gone back and found those damaging references to "the memo" and Audrey Kishline's "relapse" if it wasn't for you.

Maybe that's why AA says claims to have no opinion about outside issues.

I did not find this info myself either until I left XA and was attacked. "You will be ruined, your *relative* will rtake over your life and so on... so I went looking for an alternative.

[b:e186ff3842]To everyone who feels that we are launching an attack on AA, especially colter[/color:e186ff3842][/b:e186ff3842]:

It is a big mistake to view us as people who are "out to get" AA.

All I am asking you is: Is it be possible that we attempted to talk about these things at AA meetings, or to a therapist, and remedy the situation, but were shot down so severely that we quit the program instead?

That's what you have been doing here, trying to shoot us down.

[b:e186ff3842]You have been telling us, in effect, to "shut up"[/b:e186ff3842]. That's what happens when you speak out against AA in meetings.
People tell you, in various ways, to "shut up".

I know there are people out there who desperately want and need [b:e186ff3842]some kind of help[/b:e186ff3842] with a substance abuse problem but are terrified or too angry to go back to AA, for whatever reasons.

Would you really keep telling these people, over and over again, that they are simply "[b:e186ff3842]unwilling[/b:e186ff3842]" to "work the steps" and order them to go back to meetings , [b:e186ff3842]knowing that they will not do it[/b:e186ff3842]?

Wouldn't it be better to acknowledge their right to talk about their problems with AA, [b:e186ff3842]here, outside of meetings, (where you don't have to listen to it if you don't want to[/color:e186ff3842])[/b:e186ff3842], in the hopes that they might come up with a solution that works [b:e186ff3842]for them[/color:e186ff3842][/b:e186ff3842], not just for you?

Why is it necessary to speculate about "possible abuses" of the alternative programs, [b:e186ff3842]which you have not tried[/b:e186ff3842], and try to poison them for those people who were not successful with the 12 step programs?

No one here is saying an alcoholic should [b:e186ff3842]not[/b:e186ff3842] go to AA. We are not out to destroy AA. What we have done is discuss our doubts about AA with others who share our feelings, and in doing so we have offered our opinions about how someone else might avoid the pain we experienced if they [b:e186ff3842]do[/b:e186ff3842] try AA.

[b:e186ff3842]I was actually excited at the news of the alternative program, SOS.[/b:e186ff3842]

The thing I find most depressing about the 12 step programs,[b:e186ff3842] which were not successful for myself and my loved ones[/b:e186ff3842], is the way other AA members who say it is the "last chance", that we must "get it or die", and that [b:e186ff3842]even the therapists we have talked to have nothing else to offer[/b:e186ff3842], for problems with alcohol and drugs, anyway, but AA or NA and the 12 steps, and more 12 steps.

AA has a 5% success rate; think about that!

You believe alcoholism is a disease, don't you?
Would you keep taking the same medicine, over and over again, for an ilness, if it did not cure you, and if it only cured 5% of the people who took it?

Or would you try another medication that seemed promising, instead?

[b:e186ff3842]What on earth is wrong or "evil" about someone deciding to try something else if AA doesn't work for them?[/b:e186ff3842]
Would someone keep trying, and going back to meetings, again and again, (as many people do), and arguing about it all the time, (like we have been), if they weren't really interested in solving the problem of alcoholism and substance addiction, for themselves, or for others?

That just wouldn't make any sense.

If someone just wants to get high, they can do that, easily.

They don't need to keep torturing themselves with all of this endless speculation and debate about whether or not AA is the [b:e186ff3842]one and only[/b:e186ff3842] true path to sobriety.

I meant to address something else last night, but it slipped my mind. In regards to the assertion that "Orange" is evil. I've corresponded with him and I don't find him evil in the least. When I'm doing research whether it be for school or for my own curiosity, I tend to pick up the phone or write an email to the person in question. I emailed Orange a few weeks ago. He didn't seem evil to me.

Frankly, I feel it's very much on the not so mature side to call a perfect stranger evil when their only crime is exercising their right to disagree with a program. It's very much like what he told me in his email. People in AA aren't supposed to "take each other's inventory", but say one cross word about AA and they'll be very quick to take yours.

retracted

Early sponsorship in AA was very different then what we have now. In Akron the sober alcoholics would meet once a week in someone's home and eventually moved out to the King school. On Saturdays they had a dance and socialized with each other. Back then people didn't go to 4 and 5 meetings a week, they worked their principles and practiced their faith in their life. A sponsor was the person that had first told you about the idea of staying sober as a group and trusting God. Your sponsor was the guy that brought you to the group. You may have become very close with your sponsor, they would show you the ropes early on.

Scant little is said about sponsorship in AA literature however it has evolved into an institution. It is my opinion that there can be a tendency for sponsors to overstep boundaries, offer advice that they are not competent to give and wedge between the AA member and that members God concept. I think that AA could do a better job of defining the roll of a sponsor and laying down better guidelines.

A healthy functioning AA group offers a remarkably therapeutic environment. The older members tell the newer men to stay away from the even newer women. The members of a healthy group provide a non-judgmental atmosphere for members that are struggling so they feel that they can share without being looked down upon . Healthy groups take on the same spirit of tolerance and patience that are found throughout AA literature.

Unhealthy groups can present a message that is so diluted that a new comer may not even here AA but rather some compromised, convoluted version of it. They may think that "go to meetings and don't drink" is AA They may think that 90 and 90 is AA when in fact that was imported from "treatment centers" as part of their out patient planing. When they here someone say that AA is a selfish program they may think that's an AA slogan.

I'm not clear about the issue of strong "guru" centered groups. I needed structure when I came to AA, I needed to be part of a group with a strong tradition. I've seen groups that are centered around one charismatic individual that ARE "cult like" however they don't cross the line into distructive. Followers link up with leaders until the followers mature into leaders ( but better leaders). Some people can't seem to get in touch with their own volition, with their power of choice, with their own since of self respect SO they stay sick and stay inside the circle as followers. They parrot the ideas of the Guru and conspire to quell criticism of the gurus apparent inappropriate leadership role and the flawed message of the guru. The Guru compels the other members of his flock to view other groups as less than or not righteous enough. "We are the only ones working the program right." This is the same dynamic that occurs in religious sects.

Gurus are people too who are simply trying to become someone in AA because they to have the deep need to be needed. Egotism like this is a manifestation of insecurity, like so many other spiritual ills, love is the cure.

So the fundamentalist for me provided a transitional stepping stone for a more moderate frame of mind. It also forced me to dig deep into the literature for better guidance.

The Big Book itself is an amazing document. Most Big Book thumpers loose a little wind out of their sails when they discover that the BB was originally twice as long before it was edited by a couple of people who were asked to review it. There was to much "you must" language according to the editors. Also the core of AA was hammered out as the result of a compromise between the Akron Ohio "Oxford groupers" who wanted a Christian book and the New York liberal drunks that wanted a psychiatric book without so much God stuff.

If I had criticism about some AA's and the BB it is that they are to dogmatic about it. Even Bill W. felt that way before he died. There are people who use dictionaries from the BB era to get the exact meaning of the words used. Some people overlay hidden messages and such. We are people that tend to be obsessive compulsive about things, the BB is no exception. Personally I have never had a problem with anything written in the first 164 but there is more out there in the literary world about spiritual living.

I think the BB should be edited for gender neutrality and the stories should always be updated to include all people such as gay and lesbian.


To many meetings can be negative. There is a byproduct of going to AA meetings over the years and that is there can be to much negative reinforcement of character flaws. We can spend to much time morbidly reflecting on our imperfections rather then positively looking down the road where we are going.

Think about it, wouldn't you think it odd if you had a friend that went to church 7 nights a week?????? or 3 nights a week??? I think going to meetings can be a substitute for working the AA program.


I talk about these issues in AA and others seem to agree. In our area we've conducted sponsorship workshops and openly discussed appropriate behavior, boundaries and healthy relationships when we are asked to be mentors to others in the program.



Alcoholism is a disease of [i:58b9bf6ae2]perception[/i:58b9bf6ae2]. Our problem primarily is our relationships with others. What changed in me from that day that I talked with a doctor for hours as he tried to help me and the day I surrendered was my [i:58b9bf6ae2]perception[/i:58b9bf6ae2]. I was initially to proud and stubborn concluding in my mind that the people who could help me were actually harmful. So I can say with certainty and through experience that my thinking didn't always serve me very well, I needed something new to think about, something that worked.


It is true that sometimes I get mugged between my own ears.


Every alcoholic has a special bone at the base of their spine. When they kicked in the ass hard enough that bone """"""vibrates"""""" and opens up their mind.



The End.

Colter

And that all means a great deal to you as it should. However, when we shared our stories, you tore us to shreads. What exactly do you expect from us, white flags all around and a collective shout of "you win"?

Your personal story is yours and it 's something noboy can take away from you. Though some of us haven't been granted that same courtesy here. Nobody here once said that AA doesn't work for some people, it does work for less than 5% of those who go. That doesn't make it useless but it certainly doesn't make it the be all end all in addiction recovery.

My next post here will be what I learned form RR. After that, I'll be moving on to SMART. Since an informed person is a better armed person, I'll do my best to educate as many as I can.

Controversial groups like Scientology and Landmark produce complaints only once a member is [b:faa4dfde3f]outside of the influence [/b:faa4dfde3f]of the group.

From my reading of this thread (I am only halfway through) it seems that the complaints arising from AA come from participants [b:faa4dfde3f]before, during and after participation in the group[/b:faa4dfde3f].

That, to me, is what distinguishes AA from being [b:faa4dfde3f]destructively [/b:faa4dfde3f]cult-like.