Well we recently trundled on down to the Plymouth Road to Recovery (cult group) site for one our periodic albeit infrequent inspections (after all 'misery is optional' isn't it!). These little trips are generally made in the hope that we might discover an outbreak of sanity had occurred amongst the 'pointed headed ones' - Ever the optimists! Apart from the usual banalities we discovered this 'gem' (?) which illustrates perfectly both the confused thinking that exists within the cult and their almost infinite capacity to mangle any idea to suit their own twisted agenda.
This particular example relates to the cult's version of Tradition 2. Firstly AA's version (short form – which incidentally in this instance is longer than the long form!):
“Two – For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority – a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern”.
The cult's version, however, seems to be:
“Two – For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority – a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern – except when they feel like it!”
So according to the group's commentator (who goes to great (but unconvincing) lengths to demonstrate his own independence of thought and action):
“As a group we may vote on these ideas and on occasions the decision may not go the way of the old-timer or elder statesmen of the group. This doesn't make the group conscience wrong; it is our loving God expressing himself in our group conscience.”
So far so good. But he continues:
“However, we do sometimes get the leaders standing fast on matters of importance and using whatever means possible (Concept 9). That sometimes means having sponsees vote the same way, or whatever means possible on things that will affect the group and/or carry a message. We sometimes don't agree but our leaders do tend to have good foresight.”
(our emphases)
Some questions arise here?
Who decides what constitutes a matter of importance? (Go on! Take a guess!). Moreover if God's will is apparently (and correctly) made known in the first instance (where the decision “may not go the way of the old-timer or elder statesmen of the group”) how is it that this appears not to be the case in the second instance ie. “on matters of importance”?
From this it would seem that for all trivial questions God can be relied upon to deliver 'the goods' via the group conscience. However on more substantial matters His judgement may be regarded as sometimes faulty and called into question by the “elder statesmen” (how pretentious can you get!). Moreover in the latter case it would appear that “whatever means possible” might need to be employed to correct the Omniscient Being's deficiency”
“whatever means possible” is repeated twice in the above extract sounding to us quite chilling in its possible implications! This seems to equate to that most dubious of rationalisations employed frequently by the 'ethically challenged' ie. that the means justify the ends. Is there no constraint upon these expedient measures other than their 'possibility'? Certainly none is indicated. In this connection Concept IX is cited as the basis for this questionable approach. Naturally in our endless quest for the truth we decide to check out the aforementioned Concept in an attempt to locate this phrase.
We were pretty thorough in our investigations (as you would of course expect) not only reading the relevant section (The AA Service Manual Combined with the Twelve Concepts of World Service, 2012-13 edn, pp. 34-40), but also using the “Find” function to look for the phrase and even its component words. Nowhere did we find the expression “whatever means possible” within this part of the document nor indeed in any other section. The word “means” occurs four times, “possible” the same, and“whatever” not at all. There is nothing to suggest therefore that “whatever means possible” (or anything similar) are at all sanctioned here. This expression is strictly a figment of this particular “elder statesman's” imagination - or perhaps we should say merely the 'wet dream' of a control freak fantasist! In fact a thorough reading of the Concept (and in particular its inclusion of the essay by Bill Wilson entitled “Leadership in AA: Ever a Vital Need”) suggests the precise opposite.
Moreover it is interesting to note in this connection the following extract which serves to demonstrate the disparity between the principles presented in the Concept and the practices adopted by the cult 'leadership' generally:
“Somewhere in our literature there is a statement to this effect: “Our leaders do not drive by mandate, they lead by example.” In effect we are saying to them: “Act for us, but don't boss us.”
This is something of a contrast to the approach outlined by our cult “elder statesman” which includes “having sponsees vote the same way” '[having' is a cult euphemism for 'directing'] or indeed their whole ethos summed up in their dictat “do exactly what he [your sponsor] tells you”.
(screen shot from cult website run by David C)
As for leadership “by example” it would probably be better to look elsewhere than seek such exemplars amongst the cult leadership. One need look no further than the antics of the so-called 'leaders' in the Plymouth Road to Recovery cult group (Wayne P, Alexis K, Jon F) to discover that there is nothing here of any value to emulate.
Finally, the moral of our tale: If you wish to gain a good understanding of the Traditions, Concepts, Steps, guidelines etc you might try reading them for yourself rather than relying on such poor commentaries as those presented by the various 'experts' hailing from the Plymouth Road to Recovery cult group (or indeed any such anywhere!). And if you need some kind of template for recovery again we suggest you will probably be more likely to find this at almost any AA meeting than amongst the cult membership, a group who as a rule favour image before substance and for whom dogma and hypocrisy have become central guiding principles.
Cheerio
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
