CANNOT OR WILL NOT COMPLETELY GIVE THEMSELVES

You forgot the rest of it, “They are not at fault”. My friend Scott put it best, “There are some people who come to rooms of AA and they fly around and fly around and pretty soon they just fly up their own ass” I have never actually told anyone to shut the F-up at a meeting, but I have wanted to, and wanting to, ment that I had to take a look at myself, and why they bothered me so much.

“But for the grace of God go I…” comes to my mind reading your post. Please don’t take this as a criticism of your telling the gal off. I am writing as someone who has felt as you feel, has acted as you acted, and at the end of the day, came to the conclusion that I was motivated out of frustration about myself rather than by a justified, righteous notion of “speaking the frank truth.” You may conclude something totally different of course.

I think of the times (hundreds? thousands?) in 48 years when I knew I possessed something the poor schmuck next to me did not have. Insight, knowledge, willpower, virtue, faith…whatever. The conclusions I made about my superior qualities inevitably led me to a downfall. Either I made a fool of myself, or I was proved wrong, or I was humiliated for my arrogance, or I quietly came to see that it all mattered not and was a futile and faulty notion to seek to put others “right.”

And that is where I am still. It matters not. It helps not. We each walk in unique shoes. Thus, our paths are different because they simply can’t be the same. Thus, we see things at different times than others, if at all. Thus, it is best not to judge — ourselves, or others. And, most importantly, others don’t gain truth by having us dump it on their head.

This largely remains theory for me, as I fail miserably to demonstrate what seems so true and right. But I hope I am making sense to you, and not coming off as a know it all. Because I am not, and I (honest to God) read every post you write and absolutely love and admire your sincerity and honesty and want to learn more from you!

Your friend on this somewhat ill defined path:

B.G.U.

Probably because the truth is too hard to grasp. If you accept the truth then you have to do something to change it. Great post Tex.

dude.

i always hear “if you have something that is bothering you, get with someone at the meeting — don’t take it home with you,” which is what that lady mary did when she had an issue with me knitting during a meeting and that i would “get more out of the rooms” if i simply put my knitting down and paid attention. i said she was wrong and i can multi-task, but this is about you, not me.

so i guess telling me to stop knitting was pretty gentle compared to what The Honestly Says One heard, eh?

and with all the love in the world, because you know i love you so much, i find if i have a real issue with someone, it is because something they do irritates that something in me that needs to be mended. in other words, we despise most in others what we should despise most in ourselves.

freaking ouch.

you are working your program. you know there is no easier, softer way. you’ve just gotten over being sick, your throat was hurting again recently, your job situation is tanked and you have every right to be bitter. or not. you can choose, right?

did you drink?
did you smoke meth?
did you go to a meeting yesterday?

then i’d say you are doing pretty well. “don’t drink and go to meetings” was what a wise sage told me very recently. sometimes the best advice we can take is what we would give out to others.

love you.

It’s not like me to quote from the Big Book or NA’s Basic Text, but I found this passage very helpful. Irritation with individuals in the program and the way and what they share about is as old as the program itself. That’s why the came up with this.

February 23
Messages and messengers

“Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our traditions, ever reminding us to place principles before personalities.”

Tradition Twelve

––––= ––––

The Twelfth Tradition reminds us of the importance of putting “principles before personalities.” In recovery meetings, this might be paraphrased, “don’t shoot the messenger.” We often get the message confused with the messenger, and negate what someone shares at a meeting because we have personality conflicts with the person speaking.

If we are having problems with what certain people have to share at meetings, we might want to seek the guidance of our sponsor. Our sponsor can help us concentrate on what’s being said rather than who’s saying it. Our sponsor can also help us address the resentments that may be keeping us from acknowledging the value of some particular person’s recovery experience. It is surprising how much more we can get out of meetings when we allow ourselves to do as our Twelfth Tradition suggests, focusing on recovery principles rather than personalities.

––––= ––––

Just for today: I will practice the principle of anonymity in today’s NA meeting. I will focus on the message of recovery, not the personality of the messenger.

This post brought out a point I had not run across before: that 12-step meeting protocol typically requires an attendee to speak only when called on? Is that written down somewhere? I’m not a 12-step expert (never even read the Big Book), but in my CMA meetings it is only rarely that the speaker or meeting leader calls on anyone. It usually is an open session.

Just curious.

As far as blogging about what goes on in a meeting, shouldn’t we consider adhering to “what you see here, what you hear here, let it stay here?” I know we don’t know these people and you don’t identify them, but aren’t you rather treading on the idea of a confidential and safe space by elaborating on how someone shares in the rooms? (Certainly some of your Boise readers know of whom you speak.)
I think we’re already in a grey area blogging about our participation in the program vis-a-vis The 11th Tradition, (I argue with myself about it, and am trying to share more generally about recovery than I used to because of it) but I don’t think this is so grey.

Talking ONLY about YOUR experience? “The other young woman has been in and out of the rooms for over two years but can’t seem to stay sober for more than 30 days at a time. Yet she insists on calling on herself at every meeting and actually giving people advice. She yammers on endlessly about having a wonderful relationship with her higher power (lower case mine and intentional) and how she is working steps and has a wonderful sponsor and how much she has endured and remained sober and “what this program has given” her. Her first or second sentence always begins with the words, “I can honestly say.””
Excuse me, Chris, but how is that NOT discussing 1) another person 2) things that have gone on in meetings? No you are not identifying anyone by name, and the only people who would know who you are talking about are other Boise AAers, I still that it is not respecting the idea that what happens in a meeting stays in a meeting, as far as the outside world, and certainly it’s focussing on personalities over principles–rather at odds with the big book quote per entry blogger I’ve noticed in you over the past 6 months. Of course we exchange numbers in meetings. But the 11th Tradition reads: “We need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio, TV and films.” Bill W. could not have predicted the Internet, but I do think we should at least consider in the blogosphere the degree to which we are treading in a grey area discussing so specifically what happens in meetings. I HAVE written a lot about it, and thought about it, and have concluded that the need to carry the message outweighs the need for anonymity. I will ALWAYS say AA got me sober, even in a relatively public forum as my blog, because I think people need to know that’s where the solution is. But I will no longer report anything that’s happened in a meeting, even anonymously. That’s a decision I’ve come to over time, and it’s a personal one, but I think the issues I bring up should be seriously considered by any blogger and I don’t see how your comment addresses them at all.

My impertinence? Where the hell is that coming from?
Chris, I simply think these are all valid points of discussion. The nature, depth and extent of anonymity is not cut and dry–there are a lot of gray areas. I still think there’s an argument to be made to not discuss what goes on in a meeting, even anonymously, but if you are completely comfortable with your conduct in this domain, and absolutely sure of how the 11th tradition should be interpreted, then there’s no reason you should be so defensive about my bringing up these issues.