Aa history Lovers 2004 moderators Nancy Olson and Glenn F. Chesnut page

> The term "Conference Approved" did

not even exist in our Fellowship

> prior to the First Annual General Service

Conference held in April 20-

> 22, 1951. Not even the Big Book, Alcoholics

Anonymous could

> be "Conference Approved" before

that year.

>

> Today not all AA material distributed through

> rather tedious conference approval processed,

nor does it require

> approval of the General Service Conference in

order to be considered

> by members as AA literature.

>

> All references to use of the term

> of the First Annual General Service

Conference appears to point

> heavily toward the creation of a process by

which we could officially

> distinguish which literature we hold

publishing rights and therefor

> control over the proceeds that such

literature generates. This also

> would establish a firm precedence in order to

prevent non-AA entities

> from profiting out the sale of AA literature.

No small issue.

>

> There is no written record, to which I am

> that "Conference Approved" should

construed by AA members as a "stamp

> of approval" for content.

>

> Peace,

> Danny S

>

>

>

>

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

>

>

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

From: jbackman1@aol.com . . . . . . . . . . . . 6/19/2004 5:19:00 AM

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

In a message dated 6/15/2004 2:31:05 PM Central Daylight Time,

meggie1270@wideopenwest.com writes:

,

There is an unconscious movement to make the term "Conference Approved" mean

is that it is literature written for AA that has been voted on in General

Service Conference meetings as representing the thinking of the majority of

(US and Canadian) AA groups. It is not a representation that the literature

is more right than other literature, only that it does not create

substantial disagreement within AA and represents the thinking of AA as a

whole.

There is other literature, equally revered either locally or

written for AA and is either public domain or the copyright is owned by some

private source.

A general statement that applies is that there is no such thing as

"Conference Dis-Approved" literature. All literature is fair grist for AA

groups. Within AA history we have the use of the Bible (cf., Anne's morning

readings with Bill and Bob), The Upper Room - a periodical meditation

pamphlet that I believe was put out by the Episcopal or some other church,

"24 Hours A Day" privately written and now owned by the Hazelton Foundation.

There is a pamphlet reputed to have been written in Akron and published

under the title "A Guide To the 12 Steps" that is not copyrighted and is

published by various sources that has seen much use in discussion meetings

but is not "Conference Approved" and probably will never be due to its

parochial nature.

All of these, and more, have at some time been part of various AA groups

format for meetings and/or been used by individuals to augment their

recovery from alcoholism. There is no point in using the term "Conference

Approved" to imply that some literature is acceptable and other literature

is not. The stamp just means that in gatherings and votes of our delegates,

substantial agreement has been reached about the content and that no

minority viewpoint has been trampled upon.

The most valuable part of "Conference Approved" on literature is in using it

as a source when expressing a viewpoint about AA to non-AAs. If the

viewpoint is not in the stamped literature, it is probably a personal

opinion and does not represent AA as a whole. That doesn't make personal

opinion wrong, only that it is not held in common and it would not be fair

to say that "AA says....."

Mary, In Michigan

Mary's explanation of Conference approval is interesting, but inconsistent

with what I have seen and heard at AA meetings around the country. In meetings

everywhere, I have heard "oldtimers" express the view that, during closed

meetings at least, readings should be limited to Conference approved

materials.

Though not an oldtimer, I like the oldtimers' approach. Time and again I have

heard newcomers, enthusiastic about having a revitalized (or wholly new)

spiritual experience, and viewing it as a religious experience, read paragraph

after paragraph from the Holy Bible. I love the Bible, but when I want to hear

what G-d or Jesus had to say, I go to church or synagogue.

When an AA reads a specific portion to me, I feel as though I am being

preached to. So I am grateful when oldtimers, as soon as the reading is done,

explain to the newcomer that, in meetings, we limit our readings to Conference

approved materials. And the newcomer understands that he/she is not being

criticized for his/her newfound religious beliefs, but merely being corrected

on AA protocol.

The one downside of the rule is that it does exclude the Hazelden publication

that Mary referenced and other excellent and spiritual writings. But there are

plenty of Conference approved meditation books and, as Mary notes, any AA is

free to read non-Conference approved materials in the sanctity of his or her

home, church, etc.

Is there any support in the archives or in other AA history for the approach

that I have witnessed being practiced today (in NY, Wisconsin, Chicago,

Bloomington and Florida, among other places)?

Jon B.

Bloomingtion, IL

++++Message 1876. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Conference Approved Literature

From: Kimball Rowe . . . . . . . . . . . . 6/19/2004 11:08:00 AM

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

It is highly unlikely that such a rule ever existed, at any time. So much of

our literature in "non-conference" approved. Even our Grapevine, "Meeting in

Print" is "non-conference" approved literatrue, and yet it contains a section

providing suggested meeting topics which we use all the time.

Conference approved literature, like the Big Book, requires the collective

conscience of our fellowship, thus it must go before the groups, the districts

and areas before a conference decision is reached. In the case of the 4th

edition of the Big Book, it took 4 years to get the volume to print.

Now, can you imagine subjecting the Grapevine, a monthy magazine to that same

4 year process! We'd never have a meeting in print.

There is a huge difference between "Conference Approved Literature" and "AA

Literature." AA literature is anything that didn't go before the Conference,

but is pulished by AA to meet a specific AA need (i.e., Grapevine, service

materials, etc.)

I also remember reading that Bill had spoken about using the "AA literature"

as the basis for carrying the message so as not to dilute or otherwise muddle

the message. But I don't know where this would be.

The traditions seem to allow for the reading of non-AA literature, so long as

the group does not give any endorsement to the outside source. The decision to

use non-AA literature should be left up to the only authority that any group

has, a loving God, as he may express Himself in the group conscience. In the

early years of my sobriety (pre-"Daily Reflections"), the "24 hours a Day",

"Stools and Bottles" and "The Little Red Book" were frequently read from. Some

groups still use the "24 Hours a Day" book to this day.

Kim

----- Original Message -----

To: AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 8:20 PM

Subject: [AAHistoryLovers] Conference Approved Literature

Hi everyone,

I'm looking for a little information and thought maybe one of you may be

able to help. The question arose in one of our groups recently as to whether

or not the use of non-conference approved literature by those in the Program

was acceptable, or if it constituted a violation of of AA principles. I seem

to recall having read something about the use of conference approved

literature by AA members--it may have been in a newsletter or at this site,

but I searched previous postings and didn't find anything. Did Bill W. speak

or write about this in his later years or do you know of any relevant

articles?

Any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Roseanne S.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

++++Message 1877. . . . . . . . . . . . RE: Re: Conference Approved Literature

From: Lash, William (Bill) . . . . . . . . . . . . 6/19/2004 9:29:00 AM

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Hello all! I just wanted to mention that I just came back from spending

a week in Akron for the Founders' Day celebration there. The Intergroup

offices both in Akron & Cleveland have MORE non-conference approved

literature for sale than conference-approved literature. Most of these

pamphlets were written BEFORE there was conference approval. Thanks for

letting me share!

Just Love,

Barefoot Bill

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

++++Message 1878. . . . . . . . . . . . Results of the Sotheby''s Auction of

the Big Book Manuscript

From: JoAnne . . . . . . . . . . . . 6/19/2004 11:38:00 AM

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

> Just had to take a look at Sotheby's this morning to find out what the

> auction of the Big Book brought. USD $1,576,000

>

> Here's the url, if anyones interested: http://tinyurl.com/33ef4

> Jo Anne

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

++++Message 1879. . . . . . . . . . . . auction results

From: ricktompkins . . . . . . . . . . . . 6/19/2004 12:52:00 PM

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

In Brief

========

Published: June 19, 2004 copyright The New York Times

Big Price for Big Book

The master copy of the working draft of the book "Alcoholics Anonymous," which

belonged to William Wilson, a co-founder of A.A., was sold at auction

yesterday for $1.576 million. Sotheby's sold the 161-page manuscript,

considered the bible of A.A., to a classic book collector from La Jolla,

Calif., said Matthew Weigman, a spokesman.

The auction house had estimated the manuscript's price at $300,000 to

$500,000. It was offered for sale by an unidentified A.A. member who said he

received it from an aunt who knew Wilson.

Some collectors and scholars expressed concern that the manuscript's sale

would put it out of the reach of scholars interested in studying 12-step

programs like A.A., which some consider one of the most important movements of

the 20th century. They wanted the manuscript to go to A.A. or to an archive.

The typewritten manuscript has a multitude of annotations that showed how the

Big Book, as it is known, was very much a group project. Early drafts went to

dozens of people, from alcoholics to psychologists. In the manuscript's

margins they refined the language and hammered out their philosophy of how

only another alcoholic could help an alcoholic stop drinking. It was published

in 1939.

Wilson, better known as Bill W., founded A.A. with Robert Smith in 1935 and

became very much its public face. He died of emphysema in 1971.

A 1978 inscription on the manuscript is from Wilson's wife, Lois Wilson (who

died in 1988), to a "Barry." Some historians think that is the writer Barry

Leach, who wrote a biography of her.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

++++Message 1880. . . . . . . . . . . . God Calling and the Two Listeners

From: Mel Barger . . . . . . . . . . . . 6/21/2004 3:49:00 PM

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Hi Friends:

We all know that Rich Walker's "Twenty-Four Hours a Day" has been, and still

is, a marvelous meditation book for AA members. Many of us also know that it

uses some of the devotional messages from "God Calling," edited by A.J.

Russell. Still in print and still popular, "God Calling" was a result of

meditations by two English women in the early 1930s (or perhaps the late

1920s). Both women had serious personal problems but found wonderful

improvements in their lives when they began to pray together and listen for

guidance. A.J. Russell, author of "For Sinners Only," edited these

meditations and had them published in their present form. The book was first

published by Arthur James in England, and since 1945 has been published in

the U.S. by Dodd, Mead and Company.

Does anybgody know the identity of the Two Listeners?

Mel Barger

melba@accesstoledo.com

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

++++Message 1881. . . . . . . . . . . . Tex B. (Sober 2/6/47)

From: Lash, William (Bill) . . . . . . . . . . . . 6/22/2004 8:21:00 AM

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

We celebrate the life and sobriety of Tex B., who sadly passed away after

this article was submitted for publication.

I came into A.A. February 6, 1947 in Skokie, Illinois. I made a telephone

call to a friend who I knew was in A.A. and she came to my apartment and

attempted to tell me about Alcoholics Anonymous. I was drinking and passed

out in the middle of the call. I don't remember taking my last drink.

When I woke up, Jo and her husband, Bill, were waiting. They were old

drinking companions of mine, but now were in A.A. We did not spend much time

on my qualifications as an alcoholic, as this was not in dispute. However,

Bill did talk about the nature of alcoholism, that there was no cure, and

that I might die an alcoholic. The question was...soon? Or sometime later,

sober. Was I willing to do anything to be able to stop my drinking? I

thought that this was a rhetorical question but he was insistent, "Are you

willing to do anything to stop drinking?" After I gave a shaky, "Yes," he

read the Twelve Steps to me.

Back in our drinking days Bill and I had had several boozy discussions of

our atheism. But now he was talking about a Higher Power and God. I

objected. He didn't give an inch, "This is what we talk about in A.A., and

we are not going to change it because you don't like hearing about God. You

said that you were willing to do anything to stop drinking...I am asking you

to keep an open mind about this. I am not asking you to believe in God, just

keep an open mind and respect the fact that some of us do believe. He was

willing to risk driving me away from A.A. rather than deny or conceal that

A.A. was a spiritual program.

We talked about the strength of the commitment I was willing to make to the

program. He reminded me how much I had put into my drinking, that after I

took the first drink my commitment was total (I went on long violent

sprees). The strength of my commitment to A.A. should equal or exceed the

strength of the insanity of starting to drink again. After I managed to eat

a bowl of soup, they left some pamphlets and went home. I read, "20

Questions" (19-yes, 1-no) and "So You Can't Stop Drinking?" (three times).

The next night they took me to the home of Bill W. in Mount Prospect and I

heard his story and we talked about working the program. I was loaned a copy

of the Big Book to read. I first read the book by laying face down on a

studio couch with the book on the floor. I shook too much to hold it.

Then we met at Bill and Jo's house, where we talked about the Steps. It was

decided that I should start working on the Fourth Step because I

couldn't/wouldn't work on Two and Three. On the third night, I was taken to

a meeting. This was done only after I was sober, had the program explained

to me, had made a commitment to a serious effort and they had made a

judgment that I really did intend to quit drinking. I think that they felt

that if I only had one chance to make it in A.A., they didn't want me to

waste it by coming in too soon.

At the meeting, they talked about me just like I was not there. "He can't

make it, he's too young (29)... You have to be at least 40. He can't have

suffered enough." And so on; they really believed that I was too young to

get sober in A.A. They wanted me to stay. They hoped I could stay sober but

didn't think it would work out. I got mad and this was a blessing. I stayed.

In the suburbs, the meetings were held in homes, usually on Thursday night.

Refreshments were served after the meeting. In some groups (i.e. Glenview)

the spread was lavish, often by those who could least afford it. A few

members got drunk over this. Skokie tended to be prudent.

On Tuesday night, I was taken downtown to the Chicago Open Meeting. This was

in the auditorium of the Olympic Building, 80 W. Randolph. We went early to

attend the beginners meeting. When we came out the auditorium was full,

1500-2000 people! It was exciting to see this many alcoholics all at once. I

had seen 20 at a group meeting...but 2000! It was a very emotional time for

me. I knew that I never had to be alone again. One reason that this meeting

was so large was that there were no other open meetings in the Chicago area.

I asked why and was told that it was not permitted. I didn't question this

for several years.

Home group meetings were usually eight to twelve people (what you could get

in a living room). The host was responsible for the topic and refreshments.

When a group got too big for a living room, the group was split. The group

secretary was the treasurer, kept contact with the Chicago Central Office

and assigned the Twelfth Step calls. Sometimes they assigned sponsors, who

were expected to know why someone had missed a meeting and so on.

Sponsorship was formal; the two members making the first call became the new

member's sponsors; if for some reason this wouldn't work, the secretary

assigned someone else.

Sponsorship was serious. The sponsor explained the Steps and gave advice on

how to work a Step. He was expected to know what Step the sponsoree was

working on, to know what problems he was having and to help if he could. The

sponsoree was expected to be honest and open, and to tell the sponsor what

was happening in his life.

Groups were fewer than now, so the members were closer and more dependent on

each other and the group. Often one member would call another just to see if

they were still there (of course, you didn't say so). Maybe we were not too

sure that this thing was really going to work. Two of the effects of this

were strong resentments between members (cabin fever), and the emergence

(sometimes) of the group strong man or group Fuhrer.

Resentment is the number one offender. It often seemed that the biggest

problem we had was resentment of other A.A.s. These resentments were very

intense, just why I am not sure. It had something to do with the closeness

of the group, relationships; we mirrored each other's faults. My foibles

were monstrous and gross in someone else. Because we were A.A.s I expected a

much higher standard of behavior from them (and myself), and I was angry. It

seemed that it was very important that we all have the same interpretation

of the program. We had heated arguments over minor points of doctrine.

Because we didn't know how A.A. was keeping people sober, we were, very

touchy about anybody with new or different ideas. I suppose we had a gut

feeling that they were messing around with the foundations of our sobriety.

Sometimes the group was like a pressure cooker. The same old stories and

attitudes, week after week. Group pride and loyalty were high. There was

fear of leaving the group just because you couldn't stand someone. You would

not be welcomed with open arms at another group if they suspected that you

were having trouble in your own group. We learned about resentments fast.

Emmet Fox's, Sermon on the Mount was as popular as the Big Book. Few people

drank over these resentments, the program was supposed to fix things. It

usually did. We prayed for each other - alot.

The group strong man was like a tribal chieftain who saw to the affairs of

"his group." Often he was the oldest member, was retired or could devote a

lot of time to his chosen task. If he was benign he was the Sponsor and told

everyone what to do and how to do it. If this included personal service the

job was a killer. One of these living saints worked tirelessly managing the

affairs of a large flock of pigeons. One night he died in his sleep. Fifteen

of them got drunk.

Another also worked tirelessly, but with A.A. women, always accompanied by

his nonalcoholic wife. This was thought to be a great thing until people

began to realize that none of the ladies were staying sober. It later

developed that he blamed his wife for the loss of a key promotion before he

retired. She spent too much money and ruined his credit (this was in

addition to his booze bills). He was angry and blamed all women. A different

kind of 13 Step work!

One man hung around the Chicago office contributing both time and money. "C"

did a lot of good work, but he also took most of the Twelfth Step calls west

of Oak Park for his group. "C" controlled this group absolutely. After a

couple of years sobriety in the Skokie Group, I attended a meeting of "C's"

group. "C" sat in state, with his lieutenants on each side, and the

attendance was taken. Someone gave a report on each missing member. One poor

wretch, a local barber, was banished because he had questioned "C's" wisdom

and authority. Members were forbidden to speak to him or have any contact of

any kind. It was a speaker meeting so I did not have much of a chance to

sample the quality of their brand of A.A., but I was not impressed. I never

went back.

There were two other groups in the area, "S's group" and "the Colonel's

group." Groups had the name of their leader. I went to "S's" group; they

invited me to join and would take a vote to see if my A.A. wife could join

too. Again, I never went back. The "Colonel's group" had two women, so we

went there. It was the best choice, several A.A.s with good sobriety moved

in and we had a good group after a few skirmishes to redefine the authority.

"C's and S's groups" did not acknowledge any other groups in the area.

Members of "C's group" were scattered throughout the area because of "C"

taking all of the Twelfth Step calls, and these people were not told that

there was a local A.A. group. When they did find out they were told not to

associate with any of us. For years after "C's" death they kept apart, until

the group just disappeared.

The most absolute of the A.A. "bosses" was "J," the founder of the A.A.

group in a nearby city. "J" started and nursed the A.A. group. It was

successful and as it grew rapidly someone would suggest a split. "J" would

assemble the group and give his "Fellows, you can't do this to me" speech;

then he would break down and cry .He earned the name of "Crying J." He was

successful in preventing any other groups from being established. "J" had

good relations with the local police. As a result, one group of dissidents

who held their first meeting in a church basement, came out and found

parking tickets on every car. Others were denounced as not "real A.A." and

meeting places were denied. Gossip was used as a weapon, one group was

described to me as "Black A.A., the women and slippers." Serious A.A's went

to meetings in nearby towns or moved. The founder and his friends hindered

the growth of A.A. in this city for two decades. "J" died a few years ago;

there are about 20 groups in his city now.

In the beginnings of A.A., these things were possible because we were few in

number, and had nobody of experience or tradition to guide us. People would

just go to another meeting if this occurred now. We were willing to accept

sobriety as evidence of the wisdom and the right to the authority of the

founder or old-timer. We now know that sobriety does not mean that the

alcoholic has learned how to control the ego and is now qualified as a

trusted servant of A.A.

In 1950, I attended the first International A.A. Convention in Cleveland.

This was a wonderful thing and a wonderful time. Everyone was excited about

everything - especially getting to see and hear Bill and Dr. Bob. I was

deeply affected by what was obviously Dr. Bob's last talk. I was scheduled

to speak at the Chicago open meeting the next week, so I attempted to

enhance my prestige by being the messenger to bring back the co-founder's

last words. I misquoted him as saying, "Keep It Simple!" I completely missed

what he was actually saying about "Love and Service." I sincerely and deeply

regret this. There is no solace in the fact that many others did the same

thing. The slogan, "Keep It Simple" has become a permanent A.A. cop-out. But

Dr. Bob did not say it.

What he did say was, "There are two or three things that flashed into my

mind on which it would be fitting to lay a little emphasis. One is the

simplicity of our Program. Let's not louse it all up with Freudian complexes

and things that are interesting to the scientific mind, but have very little

to do with our actual A.A. work. Our Twelve Steps, when simmered down to the

last, resolve themselves into the words 'Love and 'Service.' We understand

what love is, and we understand what service is. So let's bear those two

things in mind."

On Sunday morning the Spiritual Meeting was held. I was excited by the

prospect that I was going to rub elbows with the real heavy hitters in the

God department. I do not remember the name of the main speaker but his topic

dealt with the idea that the alcoholic was to be the instrument that God

would use to regenerate and save the world. He expounded on the idea that

alcoholics were God's Chosen People and was starting to talk about 'The

Third Covenant," when he was interrupted by shouted objections from the back

of the room.

The objector, who turned out to be a small Catholic priest, would not be

hushed up. There was chaos and embarrassment as the meeting was adjourned. I

was upset and was in full sympathy with the poor speaker. I did not realize

it at the time, but I had seen Father Pfau in action and Father Pfau was

right. I had heard the Group Conscience and I rejected it. The format for an

A.A. meeting was much simpler than it is now.

Most of the meetings were in homes. The host conducted the meeting, and

opened the meeting with a quiet time. Then the topic was introduced (usually

a Step), it was discussed and the meeting was closed with the Lord's Prayer.

There were no introductory readings and no identification (My name is Jack

S. and I am an alcoholic) whenever you spoke. If you had the meeting, you

were expected to have a prepared topic. You did not ask, "does anyone have a

problem?" hoping to fluff off the fat that you did not prepare-anything. The

quality of the program worked by those who were really trying was about the

same as it is now. But we had some extra things going for us. In the early

days we were closer to the source. I was fortunate enough to be able to talk

to the two people who had actually had a spiritual "experience." I think

that hearing a second-hand account of Bill's experience in Towns Hospital

was a turning point in my life. This was told to me by a close friend and

sponsoree of Bill's who had finally had an experience of his own. This kind

of contact was available to me. I was able to talk to Bill on the telephone

for over an hour. I went on one of Father Pfau's retreats. It was a time of

great opportunity. There was a special feeling in being part of something

important that was happening. A.A. was beginning its rapid growth and one

had the feeling of the Power that was behind the whole thing.

Our attitudes about the program were different and this was due to several

causes. We did not know just how the program would work for people who were

not sure they were alcoholic. It was often suggested to a prospect that they

do more drinking, to be sure that they were ready. The prospects were lower

bottom than they are now. They were handled differently, Twelfth Step calls

were to tell your stories, to explain the A.A. program, give the prospect a

chance to back out and finally to make a commitment. A prospect who regarded

their situation as a temporary embarrassment or that they were the innocent

victim of circumstance was discouraged. I think that there is a difference

in how many are really trying.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

++++Message 1882. . . . . . . . . . . . Bill'' Story

From: robert . . . . . . . . . . . . 6/23/2004 1:01:00 AM

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

HI i'm Robert, theres a little poem in bills story maybe spmeone has

herd of it i'm sure poeple have

Here lies a Hampshire Grenadiar

who caught his death

drinking cold small beer.

A good soldier ne'er forgot

wheather he dieth by musket

or by pot

well what i'm wondering is what that last part means or what the

whole thing means i can understand most of it. just that last part

any info. on this would be helpful thanx Robert D

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

++++Message 1883. . . . . . . . . . . . "God Calling" & Oxford group

From: gentle_bear . . . . . . . . . . . . 6/23/2004 7:46:00 AM

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

http://www.equip.org/free/DG100.htm

"It would appear that even the book's title originated from the Oxford

Group. Walter Clark observes: "Expressions such as `God calling'....can be

found on nearly every page of the volume of his [i.e., Oxford Group founder

Frank Buchman's] collected speech-es" (p.108). We must also remember that

Russell edited God Calling for publication."

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

++++Message 1884. . . . . . . . . . . . RE: Bill'' Story

From: J. Lobdell . . . . . . . . . . . . 6/23/2004 6:36:00 AM

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

"Or by pot" in this context means "or by drink" -- soldiers who got drunk to

fight were called "pot valiant" -- I believe the word refers to a "pot" of

punch and one XVIIth Century punch recipe is roughly (in modern form) "Take

two bottles of whiskey, a bottle of rum, half a pint of peach brandy, mix,

add sugar and the juice of fresh lemons, and leave to ferment to itself in a

dark place for a couple of weeks, bring out, and serve." (South River Club

punch 1695) A potent pot, I think. -- Jared Lobdell

>From: "robert"

>Reply-To: AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com

>To: AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com

>Subject: [AAHistoryLovers] Bill' Story

>Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 06:01:09 -0000

>

>HI i'm Robert, theres a little poem in bills story maybe spmeone has

> Here lies a Hampshire Grenadiar

> who caught his death

> drinking cold small beer.

> A good soldier ne'er forgot

> wheather he dieth by musket

> or by pot

>well what i'm wondering is what that last part means or what the

>whole thing means i can understand most of it. just that last part

>any info. on this would be helpful thanx Robert D

>

>

>

>Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.

>Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!

>http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/219olB/TM

>--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

>

>

>

><*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

>

><*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

>

><*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

>

>

MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page - FREE

download! [84]

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

++++Message 1885. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Tex B. (Sober 2/6/47)

From: Glenn Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . 6/23/2004 5:27:00 PM

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Dear Group...I don't know where Bill Lash got Tex's article...It's not

important...But to continue where his writings left off, Tex had a full and

fulfilling life before he passed on October 6, 2000. He was active in his

Tuesday Night Whiskey Creek Group in West

Chicago, Illinois for many years. Some time around 1970 he realized that he

was putting too much time in his AA activities and scaled back; he even

stopped going to meetings for a while, but found that his home life was

filled with problems which no amount of praying and counseling with his

minister could solve. He and his wife (a strong Al-Anon) finally divorced.

Like so many of us who go through stressful times in our lives, he turned

back to getting active in service work, which is where I met him. I was a

GSR at the time, and when our District decided to split he and I were on one

of the committees which traveled to a number of our groups to determine

their group conscience on the subject. Later (much later) after I was

divorced, our relationship was rekindled through a Saturday night open

meeting. We were married in 1984.

Since service work was so important to both of us, I continued to a position

in the Area. He went to the Committee meetings with me, and in 1989 he was

tapped to be Editor of our Area Newsletter Concepts. As you can see from the

article which you quoted, he was an excellent and exciting writer. Concepts

( I always disagreed with the name of our newsletter but lost every time it

was brought up for a vote to change it) was published quarterly. Each

quarter he would write at least two pretty good size articles on something

that was both pertinent to present day AA and always talking about the

spiritual nature of our program. He gave many slight digs to our trends

toward excessive psychiatric or (as he called it) "psychobabble" comments in

our meetings. His reliance on a Higher Power showed through in all his

writings and his humility was also in evidence.

We both continued in Area service, he as Editor for 12 years and I as

chairman of many committees. After he died I found that my friends in AA

were the backbone of my life. Since he dropped dead of a heart attack his

death was a great shock. My friends helped me through my grief by continuing

to elect me to Area service positions which, along with my regular group

meetings, keep my life full and fulfilling. I thank my Higher Power almost

daily that I had the privilege to be happily married to Tex for 17 years. He

was a wonderful man.

Barb Brown

P.S. Nancy, I don't know if you want to publish this or not, but I was

compelled to write after I saw Bill's use of Tex's article.

"Lash, William (Bill)" wrote:

We celebrate the life and sobriety of Tex B., who sadly passed away after

this article was submitted for publication.

I came into A.A. February 6, 1947 in Skokie, Illinois. I made a telephone

call to a friend who I knew was in A.A. and she came to my apartment and

attempted to tell me about Alcoholics Anonymous. I was drinking and passed

out in the middle of the call. I don't remember taking my last drink.

When I woke up, Jo and her husband, Bill, were waiting. They were old

drinking companions of mine, but now were in A.A. We did not spend much

time on my qualifications as an alcoholic, as this was not in dispute.

However, Bill did talk about the nature of alcoholism, that there was no

cure, and that I might die an alcoholic. The question was...soon? Or

sometime later, sober. Was I willing to do anything to be able to stop my

drinking? I thought that this was a rhetorical question but he was

insistent, "Are you willing to do anything to stop drinking?" After I gave

a shaky, "Yes," he read the Twelve Steps to me.

Back in our drinking days Bill and I had had several boozy discussions of

our atheism. But now he was talking about a Higher Power and God. I

objected. He didn't give an inch, "This is what we talk about in A.A., and

we are not going to change it because you don't like hearing about God.

You said that you were willing to do anything to stop drinking...I am

asking you to keep an open mind about this. I am not asking you to believe

in God, just keep an open mind and respect the fact that some of us do

believe. He was willing to risk driving me away from A.A. rather than deny

or conceal that A.A. was a spiritual program.

We talked about the strength of the commitment I was willing to make to

the program. He reminded me how much I had put into my drinking, that

after I took the first drink my commitment was total (I went on long

violent sprees). The strength of my commitment to A.A. should equal or

exceed the strength of the insanity of starting to drink again. After I

managed to eat a bowl of soup, they left some pamphlets and went home. I

read, "20 Questions" (19-yes, 1-no) and "So You Can't Stop Drinking?"

(three times).

The next night they took me to the home of Bill W. in Mount Prospect and I

heard his story and we talked about working the program. I was loaned a

copy of the Big Book to read. I first read the book by laying face down on

a studio couch with the book on the floor. I shook too much to hold it.

Then we met at Bill and Jo's house, where we talked about the Steps. It

was decided that I should start working on the Fourth Step because I

couldn't/wouldn't work on Two and Three. On the third night, I was taken

to a meeting. This was done only after I was sober, had the program

explained to me, had made a commitment to a serious effort and they had

made a judgment that I really did intend to quit drinking. I think that

they felt that if I only had one chance to make it in A.A., they didn't

want me to waste it by coming in too soon.

At the meeting, they talked about me just like I was not there. "He can't

make it, he's too young (29)... You have to be at least 40. He can't have

suffered enough." And so on; they really believed that I was too young to

get sober in A.A. They wanted me to stay. They hoped I could stay sober

but didn't think it would work out. I got mad and this was a blessing. I

stayed.

In the suburbs, the meetings were held in homes, usually on Thursday

Glenview) the spread was lavish, often by those who could least afford it.

A few members got drunk over this. Skokie tended to be prudent.

On Tuesday night, I was taken downtown to the Chicago Open Meeting. This

was in the auditorium of the Olympic Building, 80 W. Randolph. We went

early to attend the beginners meeting. When we came out the auditorium was

full, 1500-2000 people! It was exciting to see this many alcoholics all at

once. I had seen 20 at a group meeting...but 2000! It was a very emotional

time for me. I knew that I never had to be alone again. One reason that

this meeting was so large was that there were no other open meetings in

the Chicago area. I asked why and was told that it was not permitted. I

didn't question this for several years.

Home group meetings were usually eight to twelve people (what you could

get in a living room). The host was responsible for the topic and

refreshments. When a group got too big for a living room, the group was

split. The group secretary was the treasurer, kept contact with the

Chicago Central Office and assigned the Twelfth Step calls. Sometimes they

assigned sponsors, who were expected to know why someone had missed a

meeting and so on. Sponsorship was formal; the two members making the

first call became the new member's sponsors; if for some reason this

wouldn't work, the secretary assigned someone else.

Sponsorship was serious. The sponsor explained the Steps and gave advice

on how to work a Step. He was expected to know what Step the sponsoree was

working on, to know what problems he was having and to help if he could.

The sponsoree was expected to be honest and open, and to tell the sponsor

what was happening in his life.

Groups were fewer than now, so the members were closer and more dependent

on each other and the group. Often one member would call another just to

see if they were still there (of course, you didn't say so). Maybe we were

not too sure that this thing was really going to work. Two of the effects

of this were strong resentments between members (cabin fever), and the

emergence (sometimes) of the group strong man or group Fuhrer.

Resentment is the number one offender. It often seemed that the biggest

problem we had was resentment of other A.A.s. These resentments were very

intense, just why I am not sure. It had something to do with the closeness

of the group, relationships; we mirrored each other's faults. My foibles

were monstrous and gross in someone else. Because we were A.A.s I expected

a much higher standard of behavior from them (and myself), and I was

angry. It seemed that it was very important that we all have the same

interpretation of the program. We had heated arguments over minor points

of doctrine. Because we didn't know how A.A. was keeping people sober, we