Changing our Preamble was a Grave Mistake.
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 38
Changing our Preamble was a Grave Mistake.
AA's preamble changed a few days ago. The pronouns "men and women" were changed to "people":
"Alcoholics Anonymous is a fellowship of men and women (it now reads "people")..."
This is a grave mistake for Alcoholics Anonymous.
Bill Wilson warned us that if AA is ever destroyed, it will be from the inside out. We have to be careful of stuff like this.
We are a spiritual fellowship that has to stay principled to Truth. We have to be careful not to cater to the whims of a changing society. That is not our business.
We are also not supposed to be "politically correct". We are not affiliated with any of that. In the spiritual life, there are no politics.
The Truth has never changed since before the first human being came to earth, and it will remain as such until after the last gravestone crumbles. So why are we changing Alcoholics Anonymous now??
It seems we are living in times where many in our society are demanding their share of inclusion, acceptance, recognition, etc. That is separative; not inclusive. The cry seems to be, "I must find some social group to fit into so I can belong.
You already belong! We in AA know that because we find God, who has accepted us all along.
There are two sides of the spiritual divide: the spiritual side and the societal, illusory side.
The spiritual life is MUCH different.
Which side are you on?
Do you want to suffer with depression and live by society's illusions? Or do you want to find the peace of the 4th Dimension in the 12 steps?
I was told not to change a single word in the Big Book. I have never liked nor agreed with female AAs who say they crossed out all the male pronouns in the Book and replaced them with "she", "her" etc., so they could relate to it better. Really? I didn't have do that to have a spiritual awakening! I'm not clueless! I know I'm included!
And you're going to change God's words??
This is the same thing.
By changing our Preamble which has always worked for everyone, we're catering to the whims of what is today a really sick society.
We're supposed to be helping to change society. Not the other way around.
What's next? "Ain't it grand the wind stopped blowing', Pa?"
If we start changing things now, where does it end?
No. No. This cannot be allowed. The entire fellowships and program of Alcoholics Anonymous is at risk of being watered down and complicated to meet the expectations of a society that is, frankly, in deep doo-doo.
"Alcoholics Anonymous is a fellowship of men and women (it now reads "people")..."
This is a grave mistake for Alcoholics Anonymous.
Bill Wilson warned us that if AA is ever destroyed, it will be from the inside out. We have to be careful of stuff like this.
We are a spiritual fellowship that has to stay principled to Truth. We have to be careful not to cater to the whims of a changing society. That is not our business.
We are also not supposed to be "politically correct". We are not affiliated with any of that. In the spiritual life, there are no politics.
The Truth has never changed since before the first human being came to earth, and it will remain as such until after the last gravestone crumbles. So why are we changing Alcoholics Anonymous now??
It seems we are living in times where many in our society are demanding their share of inclusion, acceptance, recognition, etc. That is separative; not inclusive. The cry seems to be, "I must find some social group to fit into so I can belong.
You already belong! We in AA know that because we find God, who has accepted us all along.
There are two sides of the spiritual divide: the spiritual side and the societal, illusory side.
The spiritual life is MUCH different.
Which side are you on?
Do you want to suffer with depression and live by society's illusions? Or do you want to find the peace of the 4th Dimension in the 12 steps?
I was told not to change a single word in the Big Book. I have never liked nor agreed with female AAs who say they crossed out all the male pronouns in the Book and replaced them with "she", "her" etc., so they could relate to it better. Really? I didn't have do that to have a spiritual awakening! I'm not clueless! I know I'm included!
And you're going to change God's words??
This is the same thing.
By changing our Preamble which has always worked for everyone, we're catering to the whims of what is today a really sick society.
We're supposed to be helping to change society. Not the other way around.
What's next? "Ain't it grand the wind stopped blowing', Pa?"
If we start changing things now, where does it end?
No. No. This cannot be allowed. The entire fellowships and program of Alcoholics Anonymous is at risk of being watered down and complicated to meet the expectations of a society that is, frankly, in deep doo-doo.
Canine Welfare Advocate
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 10,962
Originally Posted by SarahSmiles12 
I have never liked nor agreed with female AAs who say they crossed out all the male pronouns in the Book and replaced them with "she", "her" etc., so they could relate to it better. Really? I didn't have do that to have a spiritual awakening! I'm not clueless! I know I'm included!
Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 25,373
I don't think it works very well to get too attached to this kind of stuff. I find it's easier and better for my mental health to just roll with it.
As an example, the Bible has been re-translated over and over and the words have been reinterpreted over the years. Is that good or bad? It's not up to me. If God allows the changes, it is my assignment to accept those changes and to act in a way that reflects the Holy Spirit that is within me from birth regardless of the words written and interpreted by many different people.
As an example, the Bible has been re-translated over and over and the words have been reinterpreted over the years. Is that good or bad? It's not up to me. If God allows the changes, it is my assignment to accept those changes and to act in a way that reflects the Holy Spirit that is within me from birth regardless of the words written and interpreted by many different people.
Member
Join Date: Oct 2021
Posts: 411
Originally Posted by SarahSmiles12
AA's preamble changed a few days ago. The pronouns "men and women" were changed to "people":
"Alcoholics Anonymous is a fellowship of men and women (it now reads "people")..."
This is a grave mistake for Alcoholics Anonymous.
"Alcoholics Anonymous is a fellowship of men and women (it now reads "people")..."
This is a grave mistake for Alcoholics Anonymous.
There are many laws and regulations in society that need to be brought into the modern age, provided it's done without an agenda and it makes common sense to do so. I dont see the harm in AA being included in that approach.
I also understand the need for others to hold the original text as sacrosanct but is that really worth making people feel uneasy about following the program? For me the potential alienation of anyone for, let's face it, the purpose of semantics is a much more 'grave mistake'
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 38
Originally Posted by Triggered
Im not a major proponent of AA, but that's just personal choice. However, I fully support anything that helps to get and keep anyone free from addiction and that most certainly includes AA. And that is the reason why I don't understand why this is a grave mistake. If there are those in AA that take issue with how they perceive to be represented, why not change the wording that is inclusive for everyone? I certainly dont see it as being political. In fact I believe it is nothing more than good manners.
There are many laws and regulations in society that need to be brought into the modern age, provided it's done without an agenda and it makes common sense to do so. I dont see the harm in AA being included in that approach.
I also understand the need for others to hold the original text as sacrosanct but is that really worth making people feel uneasy about following the program? For me the potential alienation of anyone for, let's face it, the purpose of semantics is a much more 'grave mistake'
There are many laws and regulations in society that need to be brought into the modern age, provided it's done without an agenda and it makes common sense to do so. I dont see the harm in AA being included in that approach.
I also understand the need for others to hold the original text as sacrosanct but is that really worth making people feel uneasy about following the program? For me the potential alienation of anyone for, let's face it, the purpose of semantics is a much more 'grave mistake'
Member
Join Date: Oct 2021
Posts: 411
Originally Posted by SarahSmiles12
We have to find that from God. Not people.
Member
Join Date: Oct 2021
Posts: 411
Originally Posted by SarahSmiles12
Because it's our perceptions of ourselves that need to change.
Member
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 2,909
There are always going to be men and women and people who want to change this or that to better suit their vision of what should be or shouldn't be and their motives for doing so can be well intended. The potential problem I see with changing written words is not because the original are necessarily sacrosanct but because the changes can be like the end result of a game of telephone, where ten people are sitting at a table and I go first and whisper to the person next to me "Today is Sunday", the second person then whispers what they heard to the third person, and so on. By the time the original message gets back to me it is "The Giants won the pennant."
I don't have a problem with changing the preamble but I feel that the original 164 pages of the big book should be left as originally written so that the message stays the same and then individual people can decide if they can get something out it or not.
I had a lot of problems with the word God when I first came into AA. My problem kept me from getting the message for a long time.
Today I believe I will let go and let God (who I don't believe in) as far as it goes with the preamble. I can do that because I finally got the message.
I don't have a problem with changing the preamble but I feel that the original 164 pages of the big book should be left as originally written so that the message stays the same and then individual people can decide if they can get something out it or not.
I had a lot of problems with the word God when I first came into AA. My problem kept me from getting the message for a long time.
Today I believe I will let go and let God (who I don't believe in) as far as it goes with the preamble. I can do that because I finally got the message.
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 38
Originally Posted by Triggered
Sorry but I have to disagree on this, inclusion is made possible by humans accepting other humans...you might argue that God oversees it but, following the teachings of religion, isnt that why we were given free choice? I really don't mean to seem argumentative. I'm just struggling to understand why it's not beneficial to all involved in AA to afford everyone the affirmation they deserve.
I have a friend who says, "I don't even want anyone's acceptance". he's got more peace than anyone Ive ever known, a AA member of over 40 y.
he gets this. It's an inside job
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 38
Originally Posted by nez
There are always going to be men and women and people who want to change this or that to better suit their vision of what should be or shouldn't be and their motives for doing so can be well intended. The potential problem I see with changing written words is not because the original are necessarily sacrosanct but because the changes can be like the end result of a game of telephone, where ten people are sitting at a table and I go first and whisper to the person next to me "Today is Sunday", the second person then whispers what they heard to the third person, and so on. By the time the original message gets back to me it is "The Giants won the pennant."
I don't have a problem with changing the preamble but I feel that the original 164 pages of the big book should be left as originally written so that the message stays the same and then individual people can decide if they can get something out it or not.
I had a lot of problems with the word God when I first came into AA. My problem kept me from getting the message for a long time.
Today I believe I will let go and let God (who I don't believe in) as far as it goes with the preamble. I can do that because I finally got the message.
I don't have a problem with changing the preamble but I feel that the original 164 pages of the big book should be left as originally written so that the message stays the same and then individual people can decide if they can get something out it or not.
I had a lot of problems with the word God when I first came into AA. My problem kept me from getting the message for a long time.
Today I believe I will let go and let God (who I don't believe in) as far as it goes with the preamble. I can do that because I finally got the message.
Member
Join Date: Oct 2021
Posts: 411
Originally Posted by SarahSmiles12
God doesn't oversee inclusion, He gives it. this is not a matter of the mind; it's a result of the 12 steps.
I have a friend who says, "I don't even want anyone's acceptance". he's got more peace than anyone Ive ever known, a AA member of over 40 y.
he gets this. It's an inside job
I have a friend who says, "I don't even want anyone's acceptance". he's got more peace than anyone Ive ever known, a AA member of over 40 y.
he gets this. It's an inside job
Member
Join Date: Oct 2021
Posts: 411
Originally Posted by nez
There are always going to be men and women and people who want to change this or that to better suit their vision of what should be or shouldn't be and their motives for doing so can be well intended. The potential problem I see with changing written words is not because the original are necessarily sacrosanct but because the changes can be like the end result of a game of telephone, where ten people are sitting at a table and I go first and whisper to the person next to me "Today is Sunday", the second person then whispers what they heard to the third person, and so on. By the time the original message gets back to me it is "The Giants won the pennant."
I don't have a problem with changing the preamble but I feel that the original 164 pages of the big book should be left as originally written so that the message stays the same and then individual people can decide if they can get something out it or not.
I had a lot of problems with the word God when I first came into AA. My problem kept me from getting the message for a long time.
Today I believe I will let go and let God (who I don't believe in) as far as it goes with the preamble. I can do that because I finally got the message.
I don't have a problem with changing the preamble but I feel that the original 164 pages of the big book should be left as originally written so that the message stays the same and then individual people can decide if they can get something out it or not.
I had a lot of problems with the word God when I first came into AA. My problem kept me from getting the message for a long time.
Today I believe I will let go and let God (who I don't believe in) as far as it goes with the preamble. I can do that because I finally got the message.
Life Goes On
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 6,069
Wow.
I'm sorry you are so blown over by this change to take one tiny step in the direction of inclusiveness. I truly am. I encourage you to rethink your position on this.
Per the AA website, the preamble is "A short definition of A.A's main purpose. Written by Grapevine editors in 1947."
The preamble most definitely does not work for everyone - why else would people lobby to have it changed?
Bill Wilson wrote the Big Book, God did not.
Please flip to page 164, where you will find the following:
I say "our program" because I am also an AA. But I'm one you had to grandfather in because of the rule that the only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking. Seems to me like an awful lot of AAs have a whole lot of requirements aside from that, which is just dead wrong and alienates a whole lot more men and women and non-binary people that it saves.
I'm sorry you are so blown over by this change to take one tiny step in the direction of inclusiveness. I truly am. I encourage you to rethink your position on this.
Per the AA website, the preamble is "A short definition of A.A's main purpose. Written by Grapevine editors in 1947."
The preamble most definitely does not work for everyone - why else would people lobby to have it changed?
Bill Wilson wrote the Big Book, God did not.
Please flip to page 164, where you will find the following:
Our book is meant to be suggestive only. We realize we know only a little. God will constantly disclose more to you and to us.
I'd make a whole lot more changes if it were up to me to do the editing. Personally, I'd start cleaning up any insinuation (and there are many in the book and many, many more in the fellowship culture) that if you can't 'get it' with our program, you are probably mentally ill or otherwise incapable of being a decent human being. I say "our program" because I am also an AA. But I'm one you had to grandfather in because of the rule that the only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking. Seems to me like an awful lot of AAs have a whole lot of requirements aside from that, which is just dead wrong and alienates a whole lot more men and women and non-binary people that it saves.
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 38
Originally Posted by Triggered
when it comes to 'faith' based beliefs I'm out...you believe God intiates inclusion.... I say it's people....we wont agree on this so I'll just say good luck on your sober journey and long may it last
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 38
Originally Posted by Obladi
Wow.
I'm sorry you are so blown over by this change to take one tiny step in the direction of inclusiveness. I truly am. I encourage you to rethink your position on this.
Per the AA website, the preamble is "A short definition of A.A's main purpose. Written by Grapevine editors in 1947."
The preamble most definitely does not work for everyone - why else would people lobby to have it changed?
Bill Wilson wrote the Big Book, God did not.
Please flip to page 164, where you will find the following:
I say "our program" because I am also an AA. But I'm one you had to grandfather in because of the rule that the only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking. Seems to me like an awful lot of AAs have a whole lot of requirements aside from that, which is just dead wrong and alienates a whole lot more men and women and non-binary people that it saves.
I'm sorry you are so blown over by this change to take one tiny step in the direction of inclusiveness. I truly am. I encourage you to rethink your position on this.
Per the AA website, the preamble is "A short definition of A.A's main purpose. Written by Grapevine editors in 1947."
The preamble most definitely does not work for everyone - why else would people lobby to have it changed?
Bill Wilson wrote the Big Book, God did not.
Please flip to page 164, where you will find the following:
Our book is meant to be suggestive only. We realize we know only a little. God will constantly disclose more to you and to us.
I'd make a whole lot more changes if it were up to me to do the editing. Personally, I'd start cleaning up any insinuation (and there are many in the book and many, many more in the fellowship culture) that if you can't 'get it' with our program, you are probably mentally ill or otherwise incapable of being a decent human being.I say "our program" because I am also an AA. But I'm one you had to grandfather in because of the rule that the only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking. Seems to me like an awful lot of AAs have a whole lot of requirements aside from that, which is just dead wrong and alienates a whole lot more men and women and non-binary people that it saves.
The Grapevine is not AA literature.
God gave us the Book because He didn't want us to suffer anymore. It was written through Bill Wilson's hand.
As for pg 164, I am not a book. I am an alcoholic. The instructions in the Big Book are not "suggestions" to me.
Your comment about "insinuations" in the BB made me laugh (I mean that sweetly). What insinuations do you mean, and have you tried to study the Book with a group who understands it? I would like an example maybe I can help clarify some things.
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
