So...based on your description of how the AA hierarchy works--the inmates are running the asylum?
In AA, you are told in no uncertain terms that you have a disease and that AA is where you come to treat it. What you're saying is that the PATIENTS are responsible for deciding how to treat their condition.
Who is working on the 5th edition?
Someone has to write it, edit it, and decide what goes into the literature. That's what the GSO does.
The "fellowship" can't do it, particularly when that fellowship is comprised of problem drinkers with no medical or psychological qualifications.
I realize that "the basic text" has remained the same--and that's my point. It needs to change.
It was written in 1939, and it needs to be updated to make sense in the 21st century. It still contains "The Doctors Opinion" from 1939 (before we had the cure for polio), and back then, the doctor was admittedly clueless about how to treat alcohol abuse.
If I were to sum up the doctor's opinion as it's written in the AA Big Book it would go something like this...
"We doctors don't know how to cure or even treat alcohol abuse...but AA might be on to something."
As for Bill W...
"While notes written by nurse James Dannenberg say that Bill Wilson asked for whiskey four times (December 25, 1970, January 2, 1971, January 8, 1971, and January 14, 1971) in his final month of living, he drank no alcohol for the final 36 years of his life."
I plucked this right from Wikipedia. What part of that is fallacy? Were you at his bedside?
What we do know for sure is that Bill Wilson took LSD and praised its potential, but if an AA member did that today, they would be told they are no longer "sober."
Whereas Bill Wilson is credited with 36 years of continuous sobriety before his death, but took LSD 15 years prior.
If you're worried about me spreading "dangerous" misinformation to anyone who might be reading my articles, I implore them to go read the AA Big Book for themselves--including The Doctors Opinion but especially the chapter titled "To Wives"--which by today's standards would be seen as ignorant misogyny.
As it should be.
Please don't take my word for it--read the book.
We now have medications, therapies, treatments, and other support groups that Dr Silkwood--the doctor whose opinion it was--did not live to see.
You may be part of AA's 10% success rate--but what about the 90% that AA doesn't work for? Those are the people I'm concerned with.
As for my personal experience in AA, I went to thousands of meetings over many years, and I share exactly what I saw, heard, and was subjected to.
You claiming that it's false or didn't happen because you didn't see it would be like me saying the #metoo movement is just making it all up--because I didn't see it.
Perhaps you should be listening instead of accusing.
There are important reasons for criticizing AA--it's a treatment for Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD). Should we not seek to scrutinize and improve ALL treatments for mental disorders? That's how medicine and science work.
We don't still rely on the science and medicine we had in 1939.
Last but not least, there are millions of people all over the world who identify as Catholic and are perfectly happy with their faith. There are also delighted Scientologists and content members of the Boy Scouts.
Does that mean the terrible experiences of former members of these groups should not be shared? Should they keep their mouths shut?
If your chief concern here is educating people about the realities of AA (in your opinion), maybe you would like to share with the readers what "13th stepping" is in the fellowship.
Or they could google it.
