It has occurred to us in our musings that it may be that the cult’s inability to distinguish between the dogmatic and the suggestive is due simply to the fact that they have not yet acquired the skill of using a dictionary. So, in furtherance of our declared intention of fulfilling an educational role let us start with the definition of the word “suggest” and its grammatical variants.
Our source is the Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary, New Edition 1972 (a well thumbed and valued item much employed in the pursuit of clarity).
Suggest – v.t. to introduce indirectly to the thoughts: to call up in the mind: to put forward, as a plan, hypothesis, thought etc: to give an impression of: to tempt (Shak.): to insinuate (Shak.): to influence hypnotically – v.i. to make suggestions.
Suggestion – process or act of suggesting: hint: proposal: indecent proposal: incitement, temptation: information without oath, not being pleadable (law): a false or underhand representation (obs.): communication of belief or impulse to a hypnotised person.
Suggestive – containing a hint: fitted to suggest: awaking the mind: stimulating: pertaining to hypnotic suggestion: tending to awake indecent imaginations (coll. euphemism) [L. suggerere, - gestum, sub, under, gerere to carry]
We will refrain from further defining the words used in the above definition because eventually this will result inevitably in reproducing the entire dictionary and we are quite sure you get the basic idea anyway. From the above it should be quite clear (apart from the references to ‘hypnotic suggestion’ and ‘indecent proposal’ and most interestingly the obsolete usage, ‘a false or underhand representation” - which we would say are spot on when it comes to the cult’s version of what AA is about) that “suggest”, “suggestion”, and “suggestive” carry none of the connotations associated with the cult’s use of these terms. There is no suggestion that these words may be associated with “direct”, “control”, “manipulate”, “abuse”, “coerce”, “force”, “bully”, “threaten”, “undermine”, or any other terms that suggest that one AA member has any right or authority to organise, control or direct the affairs of another AA member.
Cult members might also like to refer to Chapter 7 “Working With Others” (our emphasis) in the book Alcoholics Anonymous (a work with which most cult members seem to be quite unacquainted). The title we would say is “suggestive” of the fact that “working with” may not be construed as “directing”, “controlling”, “manipulating”, “abusing”, “coercing”, “forcing”, “bullying”, “threatening” or “undermining” members of AA. We recommend that all cult members consult this particular chapter (if not the whole book) since it is a cult claim that the AA message they carry is that exhibited in the Big Book. The question that we have got to ask is which version of the book are they using because it bears no resemblance to the copy we have up on the bookshelf? In fact we would suggest that the message carried by the cult is not even an echo of that outlined in the Big Book. We would rather suggest that the recovery programme propagated by the cult derives more from two websites (non AA and which we have no desire to advertise) that rather carry the message that sponsor worship is the solution and therefore place a human power before a Higher Power, that human solutions precede divine (however that may be interpreted) and therefore human personality take precedence over spiritual principle. Since these concepts go to the heart of the recovery programme it would seem to us that the cult’s message is so far removed from that of AA’s that the two can no longer be regarded as in anyway similar.
From our perspective the cult groups have such an established record of mutilating the recovery programme, deliberately misinterpreting the traditions and steps, causing serious harm to members of AA through their ill informed direction on the use of prescribed medication, together with their meddling and troublesome interventions in the private affairs of people attending AA that they no longer constitute AA groups nor do they run AA meetings. Their groups may well be attended by people who have a desire to stop drinking but their solution is not the AA solution, their message is not the AA message, they have neither the remotest grasp of the spirit of AA nor of spiritual principles. They most clearly exemplify that type described so adequately in the Big Book – “self will run riot”. They bring AA into disrepute and the fellowship can ill afford to continue to ignore their destructive influence within our society.
An afterthought. Consider that a man approaches you in the street – he places a gun to your head and “suggests” in the sweetest and most kindly terms that you hand your money over to his care. What would you do and why would you do it? An exaggeration – we think not.
Over to you.
