Re: From they to we, inexplicably
Preamble history
?
The Preamble first appeared in the Grapevine in June 1947, and was written by Tom Yutzy., the Grapevine editor at that time. The aim was to offer a concise definition of A.A. Shortly thereafter, the Preamble began appearing in each monthly issue of the Grapevine, and later on in much of our A.A. Conference-approved literature.
??
It came to be called the preamble because it is so often read at the opening of A.A. meetings.
??
The original version of the Preamble contained the wording, ¡°an honest desire to stop drinking.¡± However, since the adoption of the short form of the Traditions in 1950, the Third Tradition has always read, ¡°The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking¡± and this form was used by Bill in writing the book, Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions.
??
In 1958 the expression ¡°honest desire¡± was discussed at great length at the General Service Conference. It was felt that it was impossible to determine what constitutes an ¡°honest¡± desire to stop drinking, thus the word was dropped. The version of the Preamble without the word ¡°honest¡± first appeared in the September 1958 issue of the Grapevine.
?
In 2021 ¡°men and women¡± was changed to ¡°people.¡±
?
At the 71st General Service Conference annual meeting, held online over April 17 to April 25, 2021, a revision to the AA Preamble was approved through advisory action. The change replaced the words ¡°men and women¡± with the word ¡°people¡± in the first sentence of the Preamble.
?
Discussion of the change first drew attention a couple of years ago, when the more inclusive language was suggested to the General Service Board.
Aptly, the theme at this year¡¯s GSC conference was: ¡°AA in a Time of Change.¡± The report of the conference included a timely quote that AA co-founder Bill W. had made more than three score years earlier: ¡°We live in an era of change. Our Twelve Steps probably won¡¯t change; the Traditions, not at all likely. But our manner of communication, our manner of organizing ourselves for function, for service¡ªlet us hope that this goes on changing for the better, forever.¡± Bill W., 1960 GSC talk.
?
??
There have been other versions of the Preamble, written by A.A. members for their local groups¡¯ use, which were then circulated around A.A.; for example: the ¡°Texas Preamble,¡± the ¡°Wilmington Preamble,¡± etc. Many A.A. members find these interesting, though they have never been adopted by the Fellowship as a whole.
|
Re: From they to we, inexplicably
For what it's worth - and I am no grammarian, by any means, so this is just the way I remember the rules from nearly 50 years ago.
"Alcoholics Anonymous is a *fellowship of people* who share *their* experience..."? the word "their" refers to the "fellowship," not to the individuals making up the fellowship.? If it said "a fellowship of people who share OUR experience..." it sounds (to me, anyway) like "we" are separate from the "fellowship."? If I said "Alcoholics Anonymous is a fellowship of bakers who share our pie with each other," it may sound more obvious. In general terms, "We" may be a part of "They," but "we" are not all of "them."
(And I am now saying a silent prayer to the late Dorothy Bonash, my high-school freshman English teacher, hoping that I remembered the nightmare exercises of diagramming sentences correctly....)
Regardless, I'm pretty sure the last line from Tommy H's post is worth repeating... "Our Fellowship has survived all these years as it is so we'll likely continue to trudge on without any changes."?
On a side note - I have a number of personal friends who were grateful for the change - butat a recent conference in my area, the organizers made it very, VERY clear that anyone reading "the Preamble" would be expected to use the original, "correct" Preamble.... proof again that we can be stubborn and change-resistant critters...
|
Re: Foreword to the 2nd edition
#event
Thom, ?I cant agree with you more. I cant believe a conference voted to change anything about "modem to modem". Many of you have factually been helping each other and exchanging info, "modem to modem"since? when? Early 1990's?
The Fifth edition is still being discussed and put together. Perhaps some of you who feel strongly about this subject can try to see to it that there is language in the fifth edition foreword about "electronic" correspondence. ?
Also, keep in mind, a PLAIN LANGUAGE FOURTH EDITION is being written. ?Maybe in that foreword something can be mentioned about this subject.?
BTW, I need to make something clear. When I say things " cannot" be changed, i am talking about the most current voted in actions. That does not mean that a new action can't be put forth to vote to change old forewords or anything in Any AAWS literature. A new edition of "Alcoholics Anonymous" is in the works. For those that feel strongly about exactly how the book is produced, MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD. KEEP COMMUNICATING WITH EACH OTHER! ?
And thank you Thom for keeping this group going in the FB group also.
|
Re: From they to we, inexplicably
There is a grammatical error in Step Three.? The word "will" should be plural like "lives" right after it.? I don't think BW was referring to collective will.
I note in "Writing the Big Book," p. 458, Step Three from the Multilith Edition is "Surrender your will and your life? over to the care and direction of God."? Kurtz quotes the Step as it ended up written.? "Not-God, p. 331, n. 34."
Our Fellowship has survived all these years as it is so we'll likely continue to trudge on without any changes. Tommy H
The AA preamble shifts from ¡®they¡¯ in the first reference to ¡®we¡¯ in the latter, leaving a reader to wonder. I had hoped, when the fellowship took on the change from ¡®men and women¡¯ to ¡®people¡¯, it might also correct this misalignment. It gives me hope that further change is possible.
Any insights on the history of the preamble that might explain the reasoning?
Thanks in advance,
-Shannon (from mobile)
|
From they to we, inexplicably
The AA preamble shifts from ¡®they¡¯ in the first reference to ¡®we¡¯ in the latter, leaving a reader to wonder. I had hoped, when the fellowship took on the change from ¡®men and women¡¯ to ¡®people¡¯, it might also correct this misalignment. It gives me hope that further change is possible.
Any insights on the history of the preamble that might explain the reasoning?
Thanks in advance,
-Shannon (from mobile)
|
Re: Foreword to the 2nd edition
#event
There are now two to three subjects being talked about. So first off, when a new EDITION of 'Alcoholics Anonymous' is published, the OLD forewords, and need to remain ?"as is", meaning the Forewords need to appear as they were written in the first printing of that edition. The wording CANNOT be changed. ?The Forewords are for that specific edition. They are carried over for historical reasons. Before the third edition came to print, the delegates wrre asked to bring a message back to the groups that the only changes being made were to the stories. Now that pertains to "changes", not additions. Meaning, of course new material was going to be added, ?such as a New foreword n preface.
When the fourth edition was voted on there are numerous advisory action to staing the previous Forewords, ?doctors opinion, dr bobs story, the text(1-164) , appendix remain "as is". Again, that doesnt mean new material vant be added. ?Of course there was a new foreword and preface to the fourth Edition. ?
Whe it was voted to print a new fifth edition, ?it was voted on " keeping in mind the 1995 advisory action that the stuff i just mentioned, old forewords n such, "remain as is" . If the previos forewords are written with mistakes, those mistakes cant be changed, because then tje foreword would no longer be precisely as it was written for the first Printing of that edition. That would make the foreword itself historically innacurate. So yes, the old forewords need to be " " frozen".. forewords can be changed within printings of that specific edition. So, if the fourth edition is printed again, there can still be votes to change any part of fourth edition, that was specific to Fourth edition. As far as what gene brought up about the "now we are" in the story section of first printings . Those were added later. I belive it was fifth printing. 16th printing, last "story", ? "Now We Are Thousands" states , "Cleveland Ohio is an interesting example. In the fall of 1939 approximately 25 Cleveland alcoholics were attending meetings with the already large group at Akron Ohio.".?
Well thats wrong too. In the FALL of 1939 Cleveland already had its own groups for several months. So the writer screeed up that time frame too. Anyone notice also in the foreword to the second edition it states the spark that was to flare ?was ?in June? Bii n bob met in may. So that is wrong too. But it needs to remain like that, with the mistake, because by changing tje words it would no longer be "The" foreword to sevind edition as it appeared in first printing of second edition.
[Moderator comment: Well then by that logic they should fix the first printing version of the fourth edition forward back to the way it was, even though the 2002 conference voted to change it due to prejudice from what I'm told from people who were there and witnessed the extended argument about that sentence (which has now been more than proven to be extremely true, actually)... But yes, your examples show that there could be no doubt that the book, divinely inspired or not, was still written by human beings and edited by same. -Thom]
|
Re: Foreword to the 2nd edition
#event
On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 06:39 PM, Thom R. wrote:
Here's one gross example of something being changed in a forward, the Forward
to the 4th Edition, last paragraph, that happened after the third printing of
that edition.
And for the life of me, I can't find any conference action that approved that
change, it seems that someone took it upon themselves to do it without even
asking the conference, without asking the groups or even asking the areas what
they thought of the change. This change was, no evidence to prove otherwise,
made behind closed doors and in secret. And what's worse is that nobody has
tried to fix it since.
Quoting from p. 93 of Advisory Actions of the General Service Conference of Alcoholics Anonymous 1951-2022 (), under the section "Advisory Actions Relevant to the Conference Literature Committee":
2002 It was recommended that:¡ Although the committee acknowledged the importance of electronic meetings to some A.A. members, the sentence "Fundamentally, though, the difference between an electronic meeting and the home group around the corner is only one of format," be deleted in future printings of the Big Book, Alcoholics Anonymous.
The same identically-worded recommendation appears on p. 9 in The Fifty-Second Annual Meeting of the General Service Conference of Alcoholics Anonymous: 2002, Final Report under Conference Advisory Actions, LITERATURE, item # 18.
--
In love & service,
Hugh Hyatt
????+1 267.992.1297? (?voice, text, ?Duo, Signal)
???+1 ?215.?839.?6284? (?alternate ?voice, text)
???email
?
? ,
?
¡°The first concern of AA members should be with problem drinkers the movement is still unable to reach.¡± ¨DBill W., 1965 International Convention
|
Re: Foreword to the 2nd edition
#event
People never bring up what Bill wrote in the ¡°We Are Now¡° ?Chapters in the 1st Editions about Cleveland¡ You have to take that in to Acct when making a supposition about the early group from Cleveland.?
Gene?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Nov 11, 2022, at 1:18 AM, Sobrietyyizlyf@... wrote:
?As others have previously mentioned, there are a few points to consider.?
1. The Forward to 2nd edition was definitely frozen, as it was written by Bill. (The Forward to 4th edition was changed because lots of people sent letter to GSO saying that they believed that there is a fundamental difference between a meeting online and seeing
people in the flesh; Joe Hawk talks about this.)
2. Historically speaking, the first official meeting calling themselves AA was in Cleveland. If my memory serves me correctly, May 9th, 1939.?The Akron Oxford Group met on Wednesdays at T. Henry and Clarace Williams house. Clarence showed up and announced that
the Cleveland contingent is not coming up to Akron anymore, instead they are making their own meeting. It was open only to alcoholics and their families, outsiders were not welcome. Stupidly, they advertised the address as Abby G's place. Come next Tuesday,
and some Akron Oxford Group members head over to Cleveland and tried to break up the meeting. Clarence said that one of them tried to beat him up "all in the spirit of Christian faith".
(Akron followed in September? of 1940, formally breaking from the OG. New York, it seems unofficially broke away and were a nameless bunch of drunks as early as October 1937, when Bill formally left the OG. One can speculate that New York adopted the name shortly
after Cleveland.?
(Sources, How it Worked; talks from Clarence; DBATGO;? WTBB)
--
Eugene Lane
Redondo Bch Ca
|
Re: Foreword to the 2nd edition
#event
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Nov 11, 2022, at 1:18 AM, Sobrietyyizlyf@... wrote:
?As others have previously mentioned, there are a few points to consider.?
1. The Forward to 2nd edition was definitely frozen, as it was written by Bill. (The Forward to 4th edition was changed because lots of people sent letter to GSO saying that they believed that there is a fundamental difference between a meeting online and seeing
people in the flesh; Joe Hawk talks about this.)
2. Historically speaking, the first official meeting calling themselves AA was in Cleveland. If my memory serves me correctly, May 9th, 1939.?The Akron Oxford Group met on Wednesdays at T. Henry and Clarace Williams house. Clarence showed up and announced that
the Cleveland contingent is not coming up to Akron anymore, instead they are making their own meeting. It was open only to alcoholics and their families, outsiders were not welcome. Stupidly, they advertised the address as Abby G's place. Come next Tuesday,
and some Akron Oxford Group members head over to Cleveland and tried to break up the meeting. Clarence said that one of them tried to beat him up "all in the spirit of Christian faith".
(Akron followed in September? of 1940, formally breaking from the OG. New York, it seems unofficially broke away and were a nameless bunch of drunks as early as October 1937, when Bill formally left the OG. One can speculate that New York adopted the name shortly
after Cleveland.?
(Sources, How it Worked; talks from Clarence; DBATGO;? WTBB)
--
Eugene Lane
Redondo Bch Ca
|
Come join us for a wonderful time exploring our Big Book
|
Re: Foreword to the 2nd edition
#event
As others have previously mentioned, there are a few points to consider.?
1. The Forward to 2nd edition was definitely frozen, as it was written by Bill. (The Forward to 4th edition was changed because lots of people sent letter to GSO saying that they believed that there is a fundamental difference between a meeting online and seeing people in the flesh; Joe Hawk talks about this.)
2. Historically speaking, the first official meeting calling themselves AA was in Cleveland. If my memory serves me correctly, May 9th, 1939.?The Akron Oxford Group met on Wednesdays at T. Henry and Clarace Williams house. Clarence showed up and announced that the Cleveland contingent is not coming up to Akron anymore, instead they are making their own meeting. It was open only to alcoholics and their families, outsiders were not welcome. Stupidly, they advertised the address as Abby G's place. Come next Tuesday, and some Akron Oxford Group members head over to Cleveland and tried to break up the meeting. Clarence said that one of them tried to beat him up "all in the spirit of Christian faith".
(Akron followed in September? of 1940, formally breaking from the OG. New York, it seems unofficially broke away and were a nameless bunch of drunks as early as October 1937, when Bill formally left the OG. One can speculate that New York adopted the name shortly after Cleveland.?
(Sources, How it Worked; talks from Clarence; DBATGO;? WTBB)
|
Dictionary Used During the Writing of the Big Book
Do we know if there was a certain dictionary that Bill may have used while he was writing the big book?? I have never heard anyone mention any specific dictionary, but the idea was brought up in another group and I thought I'd ask.
|
File /The Oxford Group/The Eight Pointso of the Oxford Group.pdf uploaded
#file-notice
The following files and folders have been uploaded to
the Files area of the [email protected] group.
By: Thom R. <thomr021092@...>
Description:
"The Eight Points of the Oxford Group" - This is a nice digital copy.
|
A Tale that needs to be told. Best Regards, Barry Murtaugh 773.851.2100
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Oct 31, 2022, at 11:31 PM, Thom R. <thomr021092@...> wrote:
?I have some messages (known as "threads" back in the FIDOnet (BBS) and Usenet days) between Penny and myself. Many with Rich, too. I hung out on Recovery BBS a lot even though my home BBS was called "Hooray for Hollywood". I was also on Mysteria (Los Angeles) and The Rock Palace (Detroit) a lot, among many others. Tim D., Harriet L., many others from those days, as well.
I just might release some of them one day. :) Sitting on all of this early AA online history is making less sense as more people are opening up to the idea and seem to be more curious as to how it all started. I, myself got connected in 1987 originally. It was quite a rush!
Thom R.
AAHL Moderator
|
I have some messages (known as "threads" back in the FIDOnet (BBS) and Usenet days) between Penny and myself. Many with Rich, too. I hung out on Recovery BBS a lot even though my home BBS was called "Hooray for Hollywood". I was also on Mysteria (Los Angeles) and The Rock Palace (Detroit) a lot, among many others. Tim D., Harriet L., many others from those days, as well.
I just might release some of them one day. :) Sitting on all of this early AA online history is making less sense as more people are opening up to the idea and seem to be more curious as to how it all started. I, myself got connected in 1987 originally. It was quite a rush!
Thom R.
AAHL Moderator
|
Re: Foreword to the 2nd edition
#event
I believe that removing the sentence would be wrong, changing the year from 1937 to 1939 would be an honest and historically accurate amendment. As we know the forward to the 2nd edition was written in 1955 so this change would not affect our history in any negative or confusing way (like Dr Bob's actual sobriety date for instance).
|
Re: Foreword to the 2nd edition
#event
?
Yea you are right its not frozen but the several known errors seem frozen. Just for historical accuracy it seems like no brainers to update those couple things. I do have the 401 changes somewhere I think. ?I don¡¯t have any organization. I just screenshot everything and save it to albums on my phone. I¡¯m not organized like you or Jim.
I remember that part you referenced and I remember when it was removed. We all hv our own opinions about it. The term predjuice could apply but for me back in the context of the time being a beginner on computers it seemed far fetched. Using dial up modems was hard enough LOL. It will be interesting to see what the new Fwd says.?
Can you do me a favor and get me back in AAHL Facebook??
Gene
[Moderator comment: Contact me on Facebook, profile Thom Bone in direct messages and we will figure out what is going on if you cannot access the Facebook group for some reason. :) -Thom R.]
On Oct 30, 2022, at 3:39 PM, Thom R. <thomr021092@...> wrote:
Eugene, I must comment on something that you said because in the interest of accuracy I believe it needs to be clarified. And even refute it. But before I begin I want you to know that I truly value your membership in this group. Please do not think this is personal at all. I'm just trying in the interest of accuracy to put out a point and back up that point with a bit of evidence. I hope you receive this message in the spirit with which it's intended. You said this: "One answer though that the front part of the book is frozen." My, I believe necessary, response is that it absolutely is not frozen. The front of the book gets changed all the time. There are lots of examples but I'll give you one nice fat juicy one just to prove the point. Here's one gross example of something being changed in a forward, the Forward to the 4th Edition, last paragraph, that happened after the third printing have that edition. And for the life of me, I can't find any conference action that approved that change, it seems that someone took it upon themselves to do it without even asking the conference, without asking the groups or even asking the areas what they thought of the change. This change was, no evidence to prove otherwise, made behind closed doors and in secret. And what's worse is that nobody has tried to fix it since. In fact, lists have been made (you can even find them here on AA History Lovers on both platforms) where it has been proven that more than 400 changes (and counting) of the so-called sacred parts of the Big Book including the beginnings, have been done since the first printing. Some of these changes are benign, some were even necessary but some of them were as totally insane and against the spirit of group conscience as this example I am presenting. And here it is: Go ahead and compare the attached screenshot from my personal copy of the last paragraph of the first printing of the 4th edition Forward to any modern copy or any printing after the fourth printing until current. Please look at them closely side by side. See if you can notice the difference and if so, let me ask you, please, why would a sentence like that be removed in the first place, especially without any conference action and arguably even against previous conference actions precluding changes like this to be made willy-nilly-- when over time that removed sentence has only become even MORE true then it was back then?
And if it WAS removed there and square, I would take no issue on that. But in all these years I haven't found any proof from anywhere in anyone and believe me I have tried, I have asked everybody I can find and nobody can tell me the answer. So I would have no personal problem with it being removed even if I disagreed if it was done correctly, but it wasn't.
And since there's no documentation of why this occurred, I can only speculate. The only explanation that makes sense to me is that it was removed due to prejudice, fear and hatred for the idea of meetings on any other platform other than face to face meetings.?
Well isn't that strange since the big book itself was designed to be read by The loner in the first place? But that's a different topic and I've done entire talks and workshops on that which are available on places like recoveryspeakers.com just search for me and you'll find them, in fact look for the one called "A Vision For Us" if? you're interested. There's two of them, actually, and they're both different. One is about the context of the big book and the other one is a short history of digital AA.?
So come in short, it's a misnomer to think that the front part of the book is actually frozen. It's not. It gets changed all the time. They have even made contextual? changes to Dr Bob's Nightmare in the 4th edition and nobody batted an eye.
Thom R.
AAHL Moderator
--
Eugene Lane
Redondo Bch Ca
|
Re: Foreword to the 2nd edition
#event
This is the wording in the 28th printing of Third Edition (1987). According to Allan Gengler, the 26th printing ?(1986) is the same.?
A second small group had promptly taken shape at New York. And besides , there were scattered alcoholics who had picked up the basic ideas in Akron or New York ?and were trying to form A.A. groups in other cities.
|
From Penny 2P? to me today. Penny is one of the remaining pioneers of early Online and digital AA meetings. Her talk at the AA History Symposium earlier in the year was recorded and I have a download but not permission to share it. Simone could contact AAHS to see if they would permit use in AAHistoryLovers archives.
Here is her communication to me regarding the matter at hand and some documentation sources.
Penny wrote ¡° ?I know that Rich Ward started steps of DC in 1984 --- not sure of the exact date . . . . but I know that HAM Radio operators were doing meetings over the airwaves in the 1950s (I have a couple of Grapevine articles I can send you) . . . . also, I haven't watched all of this documentary, but there might be some info in here
I know that the first (documented) online 12 step call was written about in the October 1986 Grapevine.? I also have that article I can send you.
This is the best information I've been able to find.? There's a long timer up in Nova Scotia that may have more info ¡±
Best Regards, Barry Murtaugh 773.851.2100
|
Re: Foreword to the 2nd edition
#event
[Moderator note: the following text was also in another message, also by Brad that for some reason when I approved it didn't show up. But luckily I had it in my email and was able to at least give you the text. Very strange. Here it is: -Thom]
Subject:?Re: Foreword to the 2nd edition #event
If the forewords were changed they would not be "THE" forewords as written. They are left in the book for historical reasons. Like Thom pointed out, there have been several changes. To my knowledge, ?reading advisory actions, and GSC reports, the changes when " caught" by someone, have always been changed back by conference vote. Some changes were put back without a vote because the chagees should not have been made by literature committee or the publishing committee. Also, whomever contributed to the foreword may have Concrete reason to believe a small group was in fact meeting IN Cleveland in 1937. We dont know for a fact that passage is a " mistake" or historically wrong
|
Hugh Hyatt
Gene
Seastones
Thom R.
Just Walter