I have both the AA "Big Book", the 12 and 12, and as Bill sees it, to back up more of my claims should the discussion continue. I was not completely satisified with the finished product of this latest addition to my blog, but am prepared to add more as needed, if  need be.

Guess you weren't expecting me.  

Am I reading the statement right you quoted above? Does AA accept evolution? I hadn't read anything like that in alanon.

What 12 & 12 page is that on?

 Man, I can't wait to sit down, and read this, but its gotta wait until late tonight. O'well !

Video paste. If not seen Mod please help again.

link for video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzjpGp4B6Q4

Smart Recovery website

http://www.smartrecovery.org/

FAQ Q. Is SMART Recovery® as effective as AA? A. From a scientific perspective, the effectiveness of all support groups for addictive behavior is unproven. The only way to answer that question is to attend meetings from all available groups, and reach a personal conclusion about the best approach to recovery.

SMART vs. 12-Step Programs At SMART we believe that each individual finds his own path to recovery. For some participants, that may include 12-step programs, like Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) or Narcotics Anonymous (NA). While the SMART approach differs from AA and NA, it does not exclude them. Some SMART participants choose to attend AA or NA meetings when they cannot attend a SMART meeting. Some find that what they hear at AA or NA meetings helps them on their path to permanent recovery.

There ya go HS!

Hehe, yes I was expecting you. That is cool, I welcome your feedback. . In the AA 12 and 12 that is under the chapter that begins Step 2. Maybe alanon uses a different type of literature as I am unfamiliar with alanon. But if you have an AA 12 and 12, open it up to step 2 and these excerpts are in the first few paragraphs.

 AA/Alanon are the most unusual organization I have ever been a part of. They are bottom up when it comes to authority.  There are no spokepersons or leaders. Tradition 4 speaks to this - Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or A.A. as a whole. This means the power in the group is at the lowest level. What would be called the higher level part of the organization is simply volunteers who help organize where it is a must but they do not direct or are in charge. It is a flat authority structure, no one member has more of a voice than another.

I have had experience with this in alanon multiple times. I have wanted to change something (alanon tradition 5, changing aa to alanon) or get direction on what was the right way to handle something. In most organization it goes up the chain until some level of boss makes that decision. In these organization you won't be given a direct answer. You will only be given suggestions. I tell you I found it quite frustrating since I like to get shit done. But I have come to appreciate it. I don't find my answers from someone else. I can ask for help, listen to the experience of others, but in the end I have to make my own decision. The suggestion I got for changing a tradition is I would have to get the majority in my group on the same page and then we would talk to other groups and ultimately meet in some annual event which is made up of representatives from all over the country and world from each individual group. A discussion would be done and then a vote. No one in the upper organization could make such a decision, it has to be the worldwide individual groups voting.  

So the point of all that is the literature doesn't get changed much, only rarely. It is like looking at a fossil record. You see older literature like from the 1930s and it has that mentality and as you go forward you see the changing attitudes thru the decades. Harley, therefore I suggest you quote from more recent books. If you google search AA literature I think you will find lots of books. I know the big book is on the web. Don't have the 12 & 12 but will look for it.

So I will have to hunt the book down. What is your assessment of what the quote says in regard to evolution? Perhaps you can read the context and see if the big book accepts evolution. Please let me know. I don't think it is anything earth shattering except the novelty of it from a book from the late 30's. There were a lot of Catholics (Irish and drinking-what are you kidding me?) in the organization. I don't think the Pope had blessed evolution yet, but perhaps it shows the direction where it was headed.

I don't think that AA has an exact opinion when it comes to evolution. Remember in the traditions where it says that AA has no opinion on outside issues. However, the traditions also say " Each group hs but one authority, a loving god as he may express himself in our group conscience, our leaders are but trusted servants, they do not govern".

Yet it seems that many of these "trusted" servants have appointed themselves as  spokesmen for "god".  How exactly does a group of people proclaim to recognize the voice of "god" in their meetings  ?

Beside that, alcoholism is supposedly a disease. Why then, are they treating a disease, with morals and spirituality ?

Does the medical community attempt to treat clinical depression or bi-polar disorders with spirituality ? Or do they attempt to recognize such things as chemical imbalance for what they really are ?

Again, I think a group of people that are gathering together to solve a common problem is a good thing. But I do not like the type of religious, spirituality that AA prescribes as a solution to the problem.

Will address your disease question later.

I have never been in a meeting where someone said God has spoken to me and this is what we are to do. Now in the fundie world that happens all the time.  In a church they are like-minded (narrow minded) and will buy such bullshit, but I don't see that happening in an AA/alanon group unless it has seriously gotten sick. I would expect many to bristle up and tell them they are full of it.  The programs attract quite a number of people with all different points of view on God. This is why the big book in the chapter "We Agnostics" says

There is no consensus of opinion on God, it is left up to you.  The leaders are trusted servants, they don't govern. To this point they don't tell you you have to believe in their concept of god.

On the aa.org website you will find their FAQ pamphlet

http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/p-2_44questions.pdf

Here is a pertenent clip.

You are correct. AA/alanon tradition says each group has no opinion on outside issues. Just as controversial as evolution is   (it is embarrassing to type that) so is religion and god. It is odd a favorable statement about evolution wound up in the big book and I am sure there are many fundie members who would love to have that removed. But it is hard to change the fossil record of program literature as I noted before.  The god stuff is also there. As the last paragraph of in FAQ says above it is a place where you can work out an acceptable solution to this subject, but it is entirely personal. No one can answer that for me. I worked it out of my life and still am a member in good standing.  Being there are about 25 years now I have never known anyone to mock me or try to change my mind. I don't say that doesn't happen in other groups but assholes are everywhere.  If I was so attacked I would pull out the quotes I have been using. It is wonderful that the steps have in it "god as we understood him" (step 3 & 11) because those are prominent at meetings. We can "thank god" for the atheists in the original meetings who requested that be added. When god comes up I sometimes say that.

In my experience god doesn't come up as often as you think especially as often you would hear it in churches.  It is not a key topic at all. People come into alanon trying to figure out how to get their alcoholic sober after many years of trying. That is the focus to realize I am powerless over this disease. I didn't cause it, I cannot cure it and I cannot control it. But I can focus on myself and live my life, working out why I have such a need to make others change so my life can be safe (playing god). If you take in the last few sentences you can easily relate it to fundamentalism. They say there is one way and a fundie needs to have the world think just like them so their world can be safe. A quite immature approach to life. I didn't grow up as a child. I just got taller. Alanon taught me to grow up and to let others be who they are instead of the way I want them to be. I learned that is love. The former stuff I call love was not love but demeaning the individuality of that person. When these programs speak of spirituality it is speaking of this. Alcoholism is a disease of relationships.

Quite a few points to research and comment on ex-minister. It will take me a little bit of time to look into the literature and address the issues that you have brought to light. Thanks for keeping me on my toes and challenging my position. For if no one ever did that, how would I truly know I was right ? I'll try to address each point, in my next response.

I think most people here would take it as they would receive most other points of view from a third party -like many people no doubt receive Ex-minister's apologetics for the program; that is to say, with a great deal of cautious reservation and doubt. A collection of possible questions would be as follows; "What is soinso's agenda", "what is their stake in this examination of AA", "what do they have to gain from a given outcome to these personal investigations", "how severely have their past experiences tainted their judgment of AA", and "does soinso have an axe to grind".

Something that I find particularly troubling is that most of the discussion so far has been about literature. Literature by itself, IMO, isn't enough to discern much about an organization in practice. The trouble with learning anything about AA/NA 'in practice', as an entire organization, is that there hasn't been much in the way of large-scale investigation into the various groups around the globe regarding their effectiveness, their practice, the licit or illicit behaviors of one member towards another in the same group (such as thirteenth stepping), and so forth. What few investigations that have materialized have been hampered to no end by the extreme decentralization (that ex-minister alludes to frequently) and level of opacity -both have been referred to as a "benign anarchy"- found in the various Anonymous organizations.

There has been Arther H Cain, who after being present for 500 AA meetings between 1947 and 1964, said it had now slowly transformed into a "cult" and said it was "a hindrance to research, psychiatry, and to many alcoholics who need a different kind of help",  despite having written "I do not suggest for a moment that a single A.A. quit the fellowship. On the contrary, I strongly urge sticking with it. To anyone who is having trouble with alcohol I say: try A.A. first; it's the answer for most people" just moments prior to that exclamation. He nevertheless thought that AA had become a domain of irreligious misfits "Dogmatic and opinionated in their nonbeliefs". (Don't take my word for it- http://harpers.org/archive/1963/02/0014211 )

Cain's statement has, to this day, either justly or unjustly created a militant divide between AA members, many non-AA alcoholics, and much of the non-alcoholic general populace.

I too have had concerns that HS and I would get into a literature off and I agree that would not be productive either, particularly in light of what I said before (i.e. its a fossil record). However, the only other thing I can add is my first hand experience. I would say I easily triple the number of meetings attended by Arthur H Cain. His AA to my alanon meetings of course. 

It has been very helpful to me and I haven't experienced it as a program where you have to believe in a god. It certainly helped me come to my personal decision to be an atheist, resulting in finding my way to this website and grateful to it as well. I do witness fundies coming in the rooms and the tighter they hold to that the less progress they make in recovery.

AA/alanon is non-professional. Its benefit as HS has noted is people with a common problem can get in a room and talk about it and support each other. It is like when someone gets cancer. They go to an oncologist, but also can go to support groups. When I had cancer I went to an oncologist and they told me about the support groups. (However, I just couldn't bring myself to going). When my life was falling apart because of how alcoholism affected it I went to a therapist. She was the one who within a few weeks said it might be good for me to go to alanon. I had no idea what she was talking about. But from the first meeting I totally identified with the people in the room and learned from them. YMMV.

Alanon has helped me throw off the shackles of religion & the affects of the disease of alcoholism. I will be forever grateful. 

I am a willing participant in this examination. If there is dirt there I want to know, but I also don't want it to be falsely accused either. It is one thing I have lots of  first-hand experience in so I should be able to add to the conversation. 

An exchange of information. Gains already - HS has introduced me to the orange papers and other programs I was unaware of. Also, learning how non-members view these programs. Additionally talking to you guys for the first time on the other side of the fence and doing so in a rational way. That is pretty cool.

If this investigation resulted in me being thoroughly convinced these programs were a cult I would be utterly dumbfounded and wonder how I couldn't have seen it before. I would immediately go back into therapy and of course the therapist would be against 12-step support groups.

I would think you could tell from my general posts that my only axe to grind is against fundamentalism. 

Now Kapkoa please respond to the same questions? For question 3 I would like you to respond to the outcome as if you were convinced these programs are not a cult nor a religious organization but positive programs.

1. the questions weren't directed at anyone in particular. Certainly, because you come to AA/alanon's defense so often, it does (at most) look suspicious.

2. to respond to the outcome as if I were convinced these programs are positive... I would have to first be covinced that they are, indeed, positive programs. Certainly, some people are helped by the Anonymous programs, if only by virtue of a temporary intermission. I don't think anyone here doubts that. I also don't think anyone doubts that there is a high level of variability of the therapeutic quality offered by the various groups out there, as can be indirectly inferred by your remarks to the effect of "some groups are filled with assholes [...]so move on and find a better group." (forgive me if my retelling of your words aren't quite accurate enough, as I have what feels like a bit of a tooth abscess and can't be bothered to look up old posts. Yeah, tooth abscesses kinda suck)

One could also infer that there is a strong spiritual and/or religious aspect to the Anonymous programs. Particularly, it feels as if AA has a strong hint of Abrahamic religiousness. 

So you've been to more meetings in an alcholism program than Cain has? Well that kinda goes without saying with you having been a part of the program 20+ years and him having only spent 17 years in it. Additionally, I think one can agree that, oneupsmanship aside, every additional group meeting per year past x does not convey any additional relevant expertise when determing the cult-like qualities of the Anonymous programs, particularly how one or another program has devolved into thisorthat-negative-state over time.

Here is one person's experience :

http://www.moonmac.com/Cult_Called_AA.html

From Jack Trimpey, the founder of Rational Recovery :

http://www.positiveatheism.org/rw/ofcourse.htm

errr, minor clarification. When I said Cain had been in AA 17 years, I meant that's how long he had been in it by the time of his infamous 1964 "cult" declaration.