Questions and Answers on Sponsorship

Having given the AA preamble the 'once over' recently we thought we'd apply the same approach to the booklet “Questions and Answers on Sponsorship”. This piece of AA (conference approved) literature as you can see is available free online (as is most of our literature with the exception of various books (but see the “Big Book” (“Alcoholics Anonymous”) and the 12 Steps and 12 Traditions).

Sponsorship means many things to many people. Generally it has a benign impact but in the hands of the cult it has become a weapon of control, widely abused, and barely recognisable when compared with its exposition in AA literature (eg. “Alcoholics Anonymous” Chapter Seven - Working With Others, the above booklet etc). It's interesting to note that those groups (Roadies, Joys of Recovery, Back to Basics, Primary Purpose blah blah blah) who lay such stress (ad nauseam) on the benefits (even necessity) of sponsorship (or some kind of recovery 'expert') rarely if ever make reference to these texts (eg. Joe and Charlie in their so-called Big Book study virtually ignore the above chapter from the Big Book). The reasons why become clear when you contrast their approach with those recommended by AA generally. Fortunately anyone conversant with the relevant sections can easily avoid falling into the trap of being stuck with a cult control freak (and the nightmare that generally follows from such associations!), or, once “armed with the facts”, can extricate themselves without too much difficulty from the unwholesome clutches of these warped individuals. At this point we'd like to draw your attention to some important principles: Step Three; two of the three “pertinent ideas” b) and c) (BB, Chapter Five); Tradition 12 (as well as the section discussing Step Three in the Big Book):

Step 3: “Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.”

Note: This step does NOT say “Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over the care of our sponsor.”

Again in Chapter Five, How It Works (online edition, p. 60): 

“(b) That probably no human power could have relieved our alcoholism;

(c) That God could and would if He were sought.”

(our emphases)

ie. “no human power” (including a sponsor) is going to sort this problem out. On the contrary it will require the intervention of a Greater Power (howsoever this may be conceived) to produce the required results. 

Tradition 12: 

“Twelve—Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our Traditions, ever reminding us to place principles before personalities.” (short form) 

“12.—And finally, we of Alcoholics Anonymous believe that the principle of anonymity has an immense spiritual significance. It reminds us that we are to place principles before personalities; that we are actually to practice a genuine humility. This to the end that our great blessings may never spoil us; that we shall forever live in thankful contemplation of Him who presides over us all.” (long form)

(our emphases)

Again the principles of the fellowship and recovery programme are of far greater significance than any personal (and therefore necessarily partial) interpretation offered by the local 'guru', 'super sober', circuit speaker, Big Book 'expert' etc. Each member of AA is responsible for their OWN recovery and for no one else's. We repeat – no sponsor is going to fix you. Your recovery is dependent on you and your own conception of a Power greater than yourself.

Finally if you take a couple of minutes to read Step Three in the Big Book (Chapter Five, pp. 60-62) you will find a perfect description of a control freak in action

Since the booklet itself is some 32 pages long (and we're more than enthusiastic advocates of “Easy Does It” and “First Things First”!) we'll be dissecting it in easy stages over the next few weeks (commencing tomorrow).

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

A 'financial awakening'! Yippee!

“SPONSORS

Recently, I attended a meeting at an AA "clubhouse" [which shall remain nameless] at the …...... . It was a noonie, It was a closed discussion meeting. 

After going through the opening rituals and introductions and readings, someone who is "newish" stuck up his hand to share. 

This "newbie" went on to share about some problems that he was having with his sponsor. Based upon what the "newbie" said, it appears that his sponsor was micromanaging his life. The sponsor was telling him not to look for a job. The sponsor was telling him how to treat his parents, with whom he lived. The sponsor was balancing his check book. Etc. 

So, the topic of the meeting turned to Sponsorship. 

People began to share about their sponsors who now how to answer all their questions. Others shared about their sponsees and how they would answer all of their problem and tell them what to do. 

As this progressed, I recalled my first sponsor. It took me about 4 months to join a home group, and when I did, I told the leader that I needed a sponsor. She reached her arm out, grabbed a guy, pulled him over and said "...say hi to Dave, he will be your sponsor..." 

Dave and I exchanged phone numbers and Dave told me to call him, to check in with him, every day. 

So, I began calling Dave - daily. Being a "newbie" I was full of questions and confusion, etc. And, I learned that, by today's standards, Dave was a terrible sponsor. When I would ask him about a problem that I was experiencing, this answer was "...don't drink, go to a meeting.." I can't tell you how many times I heard that ...don't drink, go to a meeting.." When I asked him about the Steps, he said "...go to a Step meeting..." Other times when I would complain about stuff he might say things like "...did you ever try....? or "...did you ever consider..." and things like that. He never answered my questions. He never told me what to do. In fact, once, when I was complaining about the Steps. I forget the reason, which really doesn't matter, Dave said one of the sternest things that he ever said to me. He pointed his finger at me and said "...Stop trying to work the Steps, let the Steps work You..." In hindsight, I now understand what he was saying. 

What did Dave do? Well, he listened to me. He talked to me. He talked to me as equal. He never talked down to me. When I took my first coffee commitment, he was there with me to help make the coffee and set up the chairs. 

And I did follow Dave's advice, I did "...don't drink, go to a meeting.." 

Dave helped, was instrumental in getting through my first several years of sobriety. 

During my journey in AA, however, things have changed. Sponsors have now become deified. Sponsors are now all-knowing gurus. Sponsors are able to tell their sponsees what to do. 

Listening to people share, I feel very inadequate as a sponsor. I sort of copy what Dave did with me. When a sponsee asks me that to do, I tell them "...don't drink, go to a meeting.." When I sponsee has a problem, I try to listen. Often I must tell them "...I donnuh..."  With my sponsees, we can bounce ideas back and forth, but the playing field is level. I have learned that I am not a guru. I am not competent to tell someone else what the should do. In fact, when I was new, I didn't like to be should on. 

So, with all this conflict raging in my head, I had a brilliant I idea that I need to share! This is such a brilliant idea that I do need feedback to work out many details. I invite anyone who is interested to make suggestions that we can consider. 

Here is my idea [ absolutely brilliant ]. 

We develop a training course for Sponsors. We develop course material. We develop lesson plans. And we charge tuition to the course, and we sell the course material to the students. We design a course of approximately 100 hours, with written and oral exams at the end.

Then, upon successful completion [ graduation ] the person is presented with a certificate, suitable for framing, and a wallet sized card, with photo ID, proclaiming that person to be a "CERTIFIED AA SPONSOR." 

So, waddayatink? Brilliant isn't it. I realize it will need some tweaking of the details, which is why I am looking for feedback. 

We can develop the course. 

We can publish the course materials. 

We, alone, become the certifying organization for AA Sponsors.

And we can do this as a TransAtlantic project, and just think of the money that we can make! 

Please let me know. 

Oh, by way of PS, I attach hereto several samples of that I have in mind. 

Let me know your thoughts on these as well.”

Comment: Our thoughts? We can smell the dosh already! Quick! Quick! Before anybody else thinks of it! [looks around furtively]. Oh damn! They already have! (see Back to Basics/Primary Purpose etc).

Still it was a nice dream while it lasted!

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous …. and still broke!)

The Truth about Midtown

Screen shots from the original “The Truth About Midtown” site

 

The future of AA if we're not very very very careful!

It's already begun!

And who is responsible?

Over to you!

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Clarence Snyder: a legend in his own mind!

Extract from the AA Grapevine forum

 

re: VERY GOOD NEWS INDEED! -STEPS 1-12

"Submitted by anonymous on Mon, 2012-05-07 09:42.

Thank you for taking the time to reply. No, I don’t particularly like quoting old timers, but with all this myth and misrepresentation about AA history in outside published literature and on the internet, I feel that quoting Conference approved AA literature has now become a necessary aspect to writing in the Grapevine magazine and forum; in order to provide some balance to such misrepresentation. Otherwise AA is in danger of loosing sight of its program and therefore in turn, its good public relations and members. Quoting from Conference approved AA literature shows up the many individual opinions that were around in A.A. in the 1940s, and none is more special than any other. I think it is important to distinguish what were individual opinions or local group practices and what was and is now overall AA policy. Quoting Conference approved AA literature might inspire people to read it. It also sparks a healthy, lively debate and keeps AA Tradition alive.

Here’s another old timer quote; his remembering of 1942:

“…Most of us in Akron didn’t like all this praying” said Oscar, “We had enough of it in the Oxford Group. I still don’t like praying in A.A. I don’t like the Serenity Prayer. New York brought it in, and we resented it. We thought they were bringing back the Oxford Group…” Oscar W. (Extract from Dr. Bob and the Good Old timers, p 271)

I read what you asked, including appendix E, an interpretation of the steps written by Clarence S, January 1972 ["How It Worked" the story of Clarence S] . Afterward, I thought of what Dr. Bob said of such interpretations:

“As finally expressed and offered, they [The Twelve Steps] are simple in language, plain in meaning. They are also workable by any person having a sincere desire to obtain and keep sobriety. The results are proof. Their simplicity and workability are such that no special interpretations, and certainly no reservations, have ever been necessary.” (Extract from Dr. Bob and the Good Old Timers p 227)

The “How it worked” book is for me, a classic example of deviation from Tradition Six, where problems of money property and prestige are diverting us from our primary purpose. Too many alcoholics are seeking personal distinction or are making money out of A.A. and in so doing turning it into a cult-like religion. The adulation of personalities before principles is a process corroding the fellowship’s spiritual foundation of humility in Tradition Twelve. Tradition Four (long form) tells me that if ever I wanted to write a book which might affect AA as a whole, then I would consult with the General Service Board before publication. Tradition One would tell me to swallow my pride and throw my book in the trash if the trustees weren’t too keen on my glorious idea. Our common welfare should come first. Me second. (The Twelve Traditions (Long form) are in the Big Book Appendix 1)

After digesting the appendix of this outside enterprise, I only got to chapter 9, the chapter where Clarence S is described as a prophet in his home town, followed by the biblical quote explaining a prophet is not without honor except in his own country. I had to stop. I couldn’t take it seriously after that. I laughed so much that I couldn’t even compose myself to write you this reply until now. The “Prophet” Clarence S!!! How high his pedestal, his disciples doeth build? For a moment, I had this wonderful vision of what AA could become in a couple of thousand years time, a bunch of alcoholics hanging around a shrine in Ohio, singing the psalms of Clarence, bright eyes skyward, eagerly waiting for their beloved prophet’s return.

I wouldn’t pay too much attention to what “the prophet” Clarence says or any other old timer for that matter, they were all just ex drunks with huge egos like me. Together though, I say they did make a fine group conscience with AA policy and Traditions; with a little help from something else, of course. Not to mention those oft’ forgotten non-alcoholic humans who manned the backup higher power generators in the Depts. of Psychiatry; Dr. Silkworth M.D., his accomplice “power-house” nurse Teddy, Dr. Harry Tiebout M.D. and others; standing by whenever the patients thought they were well enough to switch off the higher power and light up the fellowship with the emotional dynamite instead. Dangerous thing emotional dynamite, you need to put your charge in its right place, otherwise it can blow the whole thing. That’s why we’ve each been given a fire proof metal box called AA Traditions in which to keep our very own stick. You can read about “the prophet” Clarence S. in “Pass it On” and “Dr. Bob and the Good Old Timers” if you like, (Though note his title “prophet” is not used in these books). Apparently, “the prophet” was on a bit of a short fuse at times, clashed a lot with Bill W. I gather. No surprise there for me.

“..By 1942, Bill was not in such favour with Clarence and his faction in Cleveland as in earlier days. In the years to come, there were further clashes, over finances, policy, the start of the A.A. General Service Conference, and other matters. The criticism was directed more at Bill than Dr. Bob...” (Extract Dr. Bob and the Good Old Timers p 270)

“..I don’t know why we had that built-in animosity. Clarence didn’t like Bill and would cuss him out, so you can see my animosity came secondhand,..” (Oscar W.) (Dr. Bob and the Good Old Timers p 271)

In his book Mitchell K states that Clancy S [should be Clarence S] was his sponsor. Neither Bill W. nor Dr. Bob were fans of sponsor worship and I was wondering where all this religious sponsor worship stuff and Bill W. denigration was coming from. Bill passed away in 1971, His old adversary Clancy [again - Clarence S] writes his own interpretation in 1972. You might like to read appendix E:b, Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age pp 309-319. Knowing about my typical alcoholic “narcissistic ego-centric core” helps me understand the nature of ego deflation in depth in Step One, I know my ego comes back soon enough, once I stop applying the steps. Were all nuts aren’t we? We believe our own egos and just keep on denying it to ourselves, then delude ourselves that we’re being honest when we’re not.

All this diversion from principles to personalities reminds me of “Mad Mitch” a now deceased Lieutenant-colonel in the British army. (Don’t ask why, my head constantly pops full of random thoughts, sometimes sane, often quite bizarre). If you like, you can find out more about “Mad Mitch” by using the search terms “Mad Mitch Mitchell.” (Not to be confused with the author Mitchell K) You can also find out more about AA prophets in a minority report to conference, using the search terms: “AA minority report (GB) 2012” (AA prophets p 32) I suggest you read it, the AAs who compiled it did a good job, a well researched and compelling document. That’s just my opinion, though I wouldn’t take my self seriously.

Now I’m stuck with this crazy vision of “The Prophet” Clarence and Lt. Col. “Mad Mitch” Mitchell racing round and around the desert in a heavily armed 4x4, bagpipers-a-blowing and loudspeakers-a-preaching the book, as they go amidst their hot air with lots of explosions and incoming fire. (Not unlike the scene in my intergroup at the mo.) It’s going to cause me much mirth for the rest of life. And today, well, I haven’t laughed so much since yesterday, so thanks for giving me these thoughts!

For “power-house” nurse Teddy, see The Language of the Heart pp 156,176

Keep it Simple- Keep it Conference Approved”

Comment: Clarence S – yet another example of 'personalities before principles'.

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Another encounter with the cult

“Thank you for your reply,

When you mentioned the term 'ex-cult members', it made me realise that I have never told you my story around all this - you might find it useful for either the website or your own information.

Having been in contact with AA for about six weeks, I had my last drink on December 30th, 1989. I am an accountant and have worked on a semi-freelance basis since the late seventies.

The first meeting I attended was in Kingston-Upon-Thames in Surrey in November 1989. My memory isn't what it used to be, but, for whatever reason, I have no difficulty in remembering my first meeting, or seeing my doctor with regards to my drinking - I remember the latter, because it was the day the Berlin Wall came down. My doctor suggested I attended a few AA meetings and see if I liked what I saw. After stalling on the idea for a while, I went into Kingston on a Tuesday evening and attended an AA meeting in the Quaker Hall on Eden Street; this meeting no longer takes place here, but now at St. Luke's Church, Gibbon Road (also in Kingston). A man called Bob (who would eventually become my sponsor) gave me his number (all landlines back then), and invited me back the following week.

Some time after this, I began doing some contract work for a friend's company, so was travelling to his company's office in Elvaston Place, SW7 on Mondays and Wednesdays. I was informed, by someone within my local meeting, that there was a meeting in the Scottish Episcopal Church on Pont Street on a Monday night. From here, I was encouraged to attend a meeting in Collingham Road the coming Wednesday. As both meetings were very close to my office at the time, I couldn't think of a reason not to. I was two months sober or so at the time and felt that it would help. By this point, I had heard talk of sponsorship and the steps in the meetings I had been to so far but felt it was better to get my feet on the ground in AA before venturing in that direction.

There was a much larger crowd in this and the Pont Street meetings than in Kingston and Staines where I had previously attended, but I figured that, as we were in Central London, this was inevitable. I walked down to the crypt and sat to the side of the speaker's table, facing inward. the rest is all a blur but I remember people asking me for my number. I remember at my first meeting people gave me their numbers - at this one they asked me to give mine. I didn't find this particularly ominous at the time. One thing I did notice was that the sharing was somewhat harmonious, somewhat seemingly word-for-word. I didn't share in this meeting; nevertheless I went home, glad for having been to a meeting.

Things became slightly awry when, at around six o'clock the following morning, I received a telephone call from a man called David (whom I now understand to be David C)[aka “The Icon” – see site for more info] telling me he was calling me on the advice of his sponsor. I asked him what I could do for him (I, for a moment, thought he'd been pointed in my direction because of an accounting query!) his response was "I was just told to call you". That was pretty much it. After a brief exchange of how-are-you-s, the conversation was over, with my wife and our young son dishevelled after being awoken abruptly. I was working at home this day, and as the morning went on I shrugged off the incident and carried on with my day, before receiving a telephone call from an individual called John C which essentially took the same course. I got a third call that day from someone whose name I can't remember (who was also quite new into the programme), and thought this was all rather odd and maybe there had been some sort of mistake and that they thought I was someone else.

I continued to attend both meetings, as well as the Tuesday meeting in Kingston and occasional others in my area and decided that this man called Bob (who passed away in 2001) was the man I wanted as a sponsor. Shortly after this, I attended the Vision meeting one Wednesday and I was asked if I had a sponsor yet. I affirmed and said the name 'Bob the Beard' (as was his name). The people I spoke to did not know who he was, thus insisted that it would probably be best if I found a sponsor from this meeting. Before I could answer, I was 'paired up' with this man called Tony and was informed he would sponsor me. I declined the polite offer and went home after the meeting. The next morning I got the usual 'phone calls (albeit later in the day after I asserted six o'clock was too early). This is where things became conspicuous: I was asked what I had been up to so far that day. My response was that I had been doing accounting work all morning. My 'correspondent' seemed quite surprised that I hadn't got on my knees that morning and prayed, or that I hadn't called a newcomer that day, or that I hadn't called my sponsor. I ended the 'phone call feeling like I'd been slapped in the face and decided to call my own sponsor to discuss this. My sponsor asserted that, seeing as his physical health prevented him from getting down on his knees anyway it would be wrong of him to tick me off for not doing so. By the next day I had disregarded the whole thing.

Six months into my sobriety, my wife left me. She decided that she wanted to make a fresh start in her home town in Staffordshire. In spite of my emotional upset, I remained sober and the divorce procedures were relatively smooth and we sold the house and I moved to a smaller house in Ashford, Middlesex. On some days I found this more difficult than others and embarked on a series of counselling sessions. At Collingham Road one Wednesday I shared towards the end of the meeting that I was struggling with the emotional side of the divorce and that I was receiving counselling and asserted that I had not felt like drinking in this time thanks to my Higher Power, and this set off a number of murmurs from those in attendance. Once the meeting ended I got up to head for the toilet and was literally grabbed by the arm and was told by David C and one other that I shouldn't be sharing about my emotions in the meeting. Two more 'Joys' folk joined this and one man called Paul asked me why I was seeing a counsellor when I had a 'so-called sponsor' who would perform this duty for me. I told him that it was, in fact, my sponsor who suggested I began counselling. I was then told that I was being fed a watered-down version of AA, and that I would never be well if I continued this. "Great", I thought, "I've been attending AA for six months only to find I'm not going to get well". I told them that I would continue the counselling for the time being, at which point a man called Tony told me that I was "probably going to turn up next week, pissed out of my fucking head" (quote). The next morning I spoke to my sponsor and he was genuinely shocked and I was sickened. I shortly received a verbal amend from David C, which he read off a piece of paper.

I never attended the Collingham Road meeting after that, but, about three years later (and long after my contract in SW7 expired), I was informed that a meeting had been formed in Eaton Square after some individuals had left the Joys meeting. I decided to attend, thinking that maybe these people had left for the same reason. This was around 1994 and I recognised some of the people there and got talking to a few. I only attended this particular meeting on occasion (maybe once a month) until around 2001, when I moved away to South Wales. I also attended the infamous Richmond meeting between 1998, the year of its creation, and when I moved. It was attended by four men in particular: John B, Donald, 'Billy the Post' and a man interestingly known as 'Skittles' and their sponsees. I also attended Kingston Hill (now Hampton Wick)[Hampton Wick Friday – to be distinguished from the Monday and Thursday AA meetings at the same venue]. These were very similar to the Joys meeting, but, from my observation, less intrusive (or so I thought). These men had attended the Joys meeting and Donald and I had kept in contact during my 'sabbatical period'. What I didn't realise was that these meetings had a similar agenda of both sponsorship idolatry and dictated meeting structures. There were strong links between these people and David C (from the Joys) with his sponsees, among others Happy Dennis and Rupert (later sponsored by Donald). I remember Rupert being told not to pick up his young children from an after-school activity because he needed to be at the meeting an hour early. David C said the only thing he could do was to leave them waiting until after the meeting to be picked up, as his sobriety depended on him being an hour early for the meeting.

I lived and worked in Cardiff, whilst attending meetings until 2006, when I returned. The only times I left Wales were to visit my son over Christmas and his birthday, and to attend my sponsor's funeral in Hampton Court in 2001. I moved back to Twickenham in 2006 to find nothing had changed. Rupert had set up a meeting on Twickenham Green on a Thursday called 'One Primary Purpose' (possibly called such as an aim to condition the sharing, but it would appear to be a mainstream meeting with no involvement from Rupert these days), and the Tolworth meeting had also been formed. I have attended both meetings in my time. The Tolworth meeting worried me more as I heard that Newcomers were being assigned sponsors from this meeting, regardless of where they were in their voyage into AA at the time.

I still attend Richmond and Hampton Wick on occasion, more for observation than anything else. For my recovery I prefer meetings in Teddington, Twickenham and Staines. I have not had a sponsor since Bob died in 2001, but I have many friends and confidantes within AA with whom I can share and seek advice.

I'm sure none of this is new to you, but you may find it useful for background or your stories section.

Best wishes as always,

R..........”

(our edits)

Comment: none required

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Cult dependency – How it DOESN'T Work!

“Hi ….....,

Thanks for your post mate, you have a good point. I will try to answer you as best I can.

There is a saying "The Truth will set you free". I certainly think this applies to cult involvement. The Truth is the one thing the Cult does not want to face. For example, in the Vision/Joys cult, the fact that the founder of the Cult movement in AA in this country, David B, didn’t have a sponsor, and repeatedly lied about this in his sharing right until his death. "I’m sober 22 years because I always do everything my sponsor says" he would to say to the newcomer. Well, yes, when you sponsor yourself I guess you do everything your sponsor says! lol. He used this confidence trick to lure and manipulate others into doing everything HE said. Thus the whole cult practice of sponsor-control is based upon a lie. Once you know this one fact alone, the entire Cult experience changes. At least it did for me. Self-evidently, a program founded upon a lie cannot be “spiritual”. What I encountered at Vision/Joys was psychological manipulation and bullying, not spirituality. That is a tough truth to face up to, partly because it affects my pride. "How can I have been so dumb as to fall for it" and “what a waste of my time, energy and good will”, were the questions that often went on in my mind at that time. However I learned through the study of Cults and their characteristics, and through the stories of others who had been involved in cults, that I was not alone.

Rather like alcohol or drug use, cult involvement satisfied a “need” or “emptiness” within me. It gave me a sense of euphoria (that is, “feeling good” via group approval, provided of course I followed the highly demanding cult script) and security (being part of a seemingly protective gang).

Human beings need to feel secure and feel good, especially if we are vulnerable, depressive, addicted, or have had poor or insecure upbringings. This is why a lot of disaffected young people join gangs, and is also, by the way, why a lot of younger people tend to be attracted to the cults/gangs within AA (you must have wondered why cult meetings tend to be dominated by young people and young men in particular?). However when these natural needs for security/belonging/self-worth etc become focused upon people, places and material things, then they are founded upon straw. The program of AA is a spiritual program, not a cult program. It suggests to us, simply, that what we should try to do is place an unreserved faith and trust in a Higher Power of our own understanding, not a human power, or thing. This is why reliance on groups and personalities is not spiritual at all, but psychological dependence, sometimes called co-dependency.

How can I really and inwardly be “happy joyous and free” – if my life is dependent upon the approval of a group, or a sponsor, or some other human agency? The kind of “happiness/freedom” - that a group gives me - is a fragile illusion, and is entirely fear driven. How can I be truly free if my every action has to be “permitted” by a sponsor, rather than my own conscience and faith in a Higher Power?

No, the only approval I need is from honestly consulting my own conscience. It also helps to have and develop a faith and trust in a loving Higher Power of my understanding, and a willingness to practice spiritual principles (honesty, truth, humility, patience, tolerance, love etc) in my life. These themes are repeated again and again in the Big Book and the other AA literature dealing with the steps and program of AA. AA gives me the true freedom of being able to choose my own Path in this regard. AA is not about co-dependency on a sponsor/personality/group/whatever, but reliance on a Higher Power which is, as the Big Book puts it, goodness and love. Don’t just take my word for it. Read the Book, it’s all there!

One of the sad things about cult involvement, in my experience, is that is obstructs my developing a real relationship with my own Higher Power. In cults, the Higher Power is always trumped by “sponsor” approval. Therefore, during my cult involvement, I became a slave of a man (sponsor), rather than a free child of the God my own understanding.

“The Truth will set you free…..” This is why I am currently going through David C Icons website, exposing it piece by piece, because it is full of distortions and deviations from the AA program. Although David C Icons talks glibly about “trusting a sponsor before his Higher Power”, his pride just can’t come to terms with the fact that his guru - the sponsorless David B – was an arrogant liar who was NOT to be trusted. So the advice given in the website is hypocrisy. All the other distortions and twists follow on from that.

Thanks for your stimulating post …...”.

(extract from aacultwatch forum - with permission)

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Tradition Twelve

Short form:

"Twelve—Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our Traditions, ever reminding us to place principles before personalities."

Long form:

"12.—And finally, we of Alcoholics Anonymous believe that the principle of anonymity has an immense spiritual significance. It reminds us that we are to place principles before personalities; that we are actually to practice a genuine humility. This to the end that our great blessings may never spoil us; that we shall forever live in thankful contemplation of Him who presides over us all."

Comment: In our view this is undoubtedly the single most important guideline, a perspective supported by its description as being the "spiritual foundation of all our Traditions", the bedrock upon which the fellowship as a whole rests. The scope of this precept is not limited simply to the notion that we should avoid identifying ourselves (singly and by full name)) as being members of AA in the public domain but rather that this particular instance is merely one relatively minor example of this principle applied in practice. The whole basis of AA rests on the notion of "the group", a collectivity of individuals who together carry the AA message of recovery. Of course some people are better communicators than others, they may have a better grasp of these principles, and moreover embody a broader and deeper range of experience than other members, but ALL AA members have something valuable to contribute in their own unique way and it should not be assumed that any individual message is necessarily of greater value than another's. More important than speech is action after all, and mere eloquence is never an adequate substitute for true endeavour. The member who simply gets on with the business of honest living, and with no accompanying fanfare, may be a more valuable exemplar of recovery than the prolific purveyor of fine words and phrases (and in which latter category of course we might even, with some indulgence, include ourselves!). When the newcomer comes to AA it is to be hoped that he or she is greeted with a breadth of experience, this conveyed by as many members of the group as possible, and that no one individual's interpretation of the programme of action takes automatic predominance over the remainder. For this reason it is desirable that newcomers not only be encouraged to attend one or other meeting but that they be explicitly advised to visit a broad range of meetings as possible to discover what suits them best (whether this choice be good or bad). Finally, of course, the integrity and depth of the message will always win out over the gloss …. which brings us quite naturally to the cult....

In their case it is quite evident that the cult's system of organisation itself is a direct antithesis to the principle outlined above. Remember (and we quote): “It is suggested that you phone your sponsor and do exactly what he tells you. If you don’t have a sponsor try each day to do something about finding one.” Here the entire emphasis is placed upon finding ONE individual and following their direction without question or judgement. The exposition of the entire recovery programme in this case derives from ONE person's experience and is by direct consequence wholly personality driven. It should not be necessary for us to point out the obvious dangers of relying too much upon a single interpretation no matter how insightful this might be (although in the case of cult members this redeeming faculty is almost entirely absent). An essential component of the recovery process for any member (new or not so new) is the development of a capacity to exercise their own judgement, and thereafter make choices for themselves as to what direction they might wish to take with their lives. The only manner in which this ability may be engendered, and then cultivated, is by its exercise, and not by constant reference to - and dependence on - the direction of another. Where advice does need to be elicited consideration should firstly be given as to whether its potential source has any verifiable knowledge and/or experience of the relevant areas. It should be obvious that no single person can possibly be the repository of all such information; to believe otherwise is to assign to them the role of “God” or “Higher Power”, something which is explicitly cautioned against in the book “Alcoholics Anonymous” (Chapter 5, How it Works, p. 60, 4th edn) under the three “pertinent ideas”:

“(b) That probably no human power could have relieved our alcoholism”

Here (and despite the prudent qualification of “probably”) it is acknowledged that no human power will suffice in such a case. The whole direction of the AA programme is to encourage the individual to place their reliance finally on a “Power greater than themselves” (however this might be conceived). It does NOT propose that this power should be another person, sponsor or otherwise. “Sponsorship idolatry” is the central theme of the cult ideology (if such an encompassing and coherent conception can be applied to their frequently adventitious if not entirely random pronouncements on what does and does not constitute the “programme”). They do in fact “suggest” (cult-speak for “Do as you're told!”) to the newcomer that they place all their reliance upon such a human power, and from which “advice” follow quite necessarily all the inevitable abuses that are so frequently witnessed within the cult groups. Moreover precisely the same dangers inhere within the proliferation of “circuit speakers” now appearing at various venues in Great Britain (and the US) where “personalities” are even being advertised as a “come on” together with all the accompanying paraphernalia of “minor celebrity”: CDs, books, study courses etc etc all with names usefully - and promotionally – appended. These phenomena are not new (witness the outbreaks of Father This, That and The Other back in the 70's and 80's where these members' 'professional spiritual credentials' lent them some supposed “authority”) but with the advent of the internet these sources are becoming ever more intrusive to - and destructive of - our central tenet of “anonymity”. The responsibility for these abuses lie firmly with their advocates and not with the impressionable newcomers who are unfamiliar with the core values of AA. These latter cannot be criticised for being “taken in” by the glib phrases and slick propaganda of the cult, nor for being seduced by the grandiose sloganising promulgated by this perversion of AA (“Never had a bad day”, “Misery is Optional” - tell that to someone who suffers from clinical depression! - etc), nor for the false hopes raised by these charlatans to induce their victims to abide by the “suggestions” laid down by a whole cadre of increasingly narcissistic “sponsors”.

It is unlikely that such dogmatists and fanatics as these will ever revise their own conduct (for that is after all the nature of their “disease”) and therefore the responsibility lies with the rest of us to ensure that this vital tradition is upheld, and that the reputation, and (more importantly) the integrity of our fellowship is defended against the corrosive threat posed by these counterfeiters.

Over to you

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)