A Mormon friend of mine is being impacted by a loved one's drinking and concerned about the effect on the children.

I went searching for Alanon in the family's area. Lo and behold, not one LDS building offers Alanon meetings or support.

Meetings at Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist churches. Hmmmmm.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/2010 01:25PM by Twinker.

That meets in an LDS Church, but as a general rule it doesn't happen. I don't know what the latest incarnation of "Mormon AA" is called (it went for a time as "SAVE" for "Substance Abuse Volunteer Efforts" but I know that changed). I'm not a fan of the brethren getting their priesthood paws on such "sacred stuff" (since it was supposed to be "God as we understood Him" rather than the way a licentious con artist or a 19th century Mormon mafia don described Him), but I hate alcoholism and codependency worth...

At least your friend won't have to contend with what used to be a real problem, namely the smoking in 12-Step meetings (and I was among the worst offenders when I used to light up). That one has pretty much disappeared...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/2010 01:36PM by SL Cabbie.

For how long before this thread devolves into "AA? Is just religious pseudo science?"

AA may well be pseudo-science, except a key element of science is reproducibility, and sobriety does get replicated by those willing to put forth the effort to obtain it...

Also replicated are all the dead bodies I've seen--and the walking dead I pick up in my cab--among those who couldn't develop any abstinence skills (wherever they learned them).

I mentioned that I really loved the statement--by an anthropologist--that scientific sorts "hate AA because it is folk medicine." I love science myself, and I figure it's up to the challenge implied in this analysis...

At least the "nasties" are generally their own worst enemies; one of them repeatedly accuses me of being in cahoots with ADMIN to suppress the crapola they keep pushing (seriously, it makes FARMS look good), but ADMIN asked me not to reply in most instances--it only makes things worse when I provoke them--and just routinely deletes it because of the personal attacks...

Anyway, AA's traditions generally mean we aren't organized and creating secret "think tanks" and media monopolies to impose our will and our values on the rest of the world... We're just looking for a way to keep the plug in the jug for ourselves...

Finally, at least three friends of mine went back to the LDS Church after sobering up, and I haven't said a word even though it troubled me... At least they don't serve booze at ward socials, and LDS folks who also attend AA tend to be a bit more open-minded and tolerant than the average Happy Valley hypocrite...

SLC
Figuring Glenn Beck is the price we pay for having the First Amendment
As well as having AA around...

I'm glad. And I know that we are borderline hijacking, I just find it so odd that every thread dealing with alcoholism starts with someone saying something like, "hey, maybe AA might be helpful."

And then the haters come out of the wood work to throw shit around.

I agree with you about the reproducibility. Psychology has a rough patch to hoe because it will most likely always be a "soft science" and therefore, practicality and utilitarianism might win the day for certain subjects.

I was particularly interested in Alanon which I would hope would help give the children involved a place to express their angst, and help to give them a sense that it isn't their fault and know that it isn't their role to control their parent, and that they need to take care of themselves as best they can.

The psychologist Toni Grant, for whom I have great respect, says that people can spend years in therapy, develop all kinds of psychological insight and STILL not be able to control the drinking. According to her, AA is the only thing that has shown over time to be helpful. As I understand AA, it's only goal is for member to help each other stay sober. I wouldn't call that a religion. At least they don't tithe!

(And thanks, Cabbie!!)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/2010 02:44PM by Twinker.

Twinker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A Mormon friend of mine is being impacted by a
> loved one's drinking and concerned about the
> effect on the children.
>
> I went searching for Alanon in the family's area.
> Lo and behold, not one LDS building offers Alanon
> meetings or support.
>
> Meetings at Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist
> churches. Hmmmmm.


They do have meetings.

When my younger brother got caught trying pot, my parents thought it would be a great idea to take the whole family to one of them at the old seminary building at the U.

My grandparents were on a 'Substance Abuse Recovery' mission at the time, so that's how we knew about it, but I can't imagine it would be that hard for your friend to find them.

"Saint" Bill W., founder of AA and inventor of the 12 steps died of emphysema. His wife pleaded for him to stop smoking. He told her "If you keep nagging me about cigarettes, I'll start drinking again." He was verbally abusive to her. He remained anonymous but reveled in his underground fame.

And why'd you leave off the story about Bill taking LSD in a clinical setting under Humphrey Osmond's direction in the 1950's?

I mean you aren't even very good at operating a smear machine...

I've repeatedly tried to school you on the definition of a cult (and I'll glady consult with Steven Hassan again; we met a few years ago), but your denial remains intact... A cult coerces membership and solicits recruits openly, controls the information its members receive, and in general directs the minutiae of its members' lives to the point they have little time for other matters...

A cult claims a monopoly on truth; read your Big Book, and you'll see AA only claims it has found something that works for us...

I hate to break it to you, but we have no official AA underwear, bub... Yeah, we've got three "AA approved drugs," caffeine, nicotine, and sugar, but we don't forcibly medicate anyone with them...

And the only shunning that's done is if somebody shows up crocked at a meeting... That happen to you? The scholarship on your posts seems to indicate continued imbibing...

I mean you use the word "inventor" and discount the contributions of the Oxford crowd (in both New York and Akron), make no mention of the altruism of William Silkworth or Sister Ignatia (or Carl Jung for that matter), and somehow write the revised history of AA to exclude Dr. Robert H. Smith, the other co-founder.

Plus the story of the nagging about smoking was a stupid and dishonest twist from the chapter on families in the Big Book where Bill was just pleading for a little compassion and understanding for alcoholics even as the message that we were responsible for the havoc created was being presented... In the story, the guy who was nagged got drunk, and Bill didn't...

I did also mention one time the old-timer friend of mine here (alas, he passed away a few years ago) who got sober in New York and always mentioned the crusty old geezer who warned, "Don't you ever try to make a saint out of Bill Wilson! Nobody had more trouble with the Steps than he did."

Only individual trying to make a saint out of Bill is you (see my past posts on strawman tactics).

I think you're jealous because Bill died sober, and you ain't gonna...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2010 12:29PM by SL Cabbie.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2010 06:23PM by The StalkerDog™.

You always come through with the facts. Thanks.

Studies have shown that all of those programs are no more effective than just quitting cold turkey. In other words no program will do anything more for the person then their own will power. Your chances of being sober after one year is 10 percent. So step one would be to see if this person actually wants to quit. If they don't then sending them to AA or any of the others will be a complete waste of time.

Any study on alcoholism treatment effectiveness is self-reported by individuals (and trust me, active alcoholics and addicts lie at least as often as Mormon apologists).

The data is flawed, period...

What research did show was that individuals who committed to meetings and followed through (based on the records) had a high percentage of abstinence a year later.

Those who didn't adopt a structured recovery plan were drunk... And untreated alcoholism is 100% fatal...

Your nonsense simply compares a drinker who stops on his or her own with somebody who walks into an AA meeting; it ignores the progression of the disease, whether there had been prior treatment, etc.

I'd keep quiet, but it's individuals like you with zero authority and zero experience that have been contributing to the alcoholism and addictions problems in this country today.

Sadly, too many work in the treatment field to boot...

EDIT: Oh My! Look What I Just Found...

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/14/alcoholics-anonymous-as-a-spiritual-experience/

>From that perspective, it makes sense that a new study finds that Alcoholics Anonymous increases spirituality. But it goes further than that: Spirituality may actually play a role in successful recovery from alcoholism, says research in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research.

>The way that Alcoholics Anonymous members share their experiences of suffering is akin to what happens in a military unit or a musical group or a family, where the idea of "we’re all in this together" becomes particularly strong, said Keith Humphreys, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford University.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2010 10:12PM by SL Cabbie.

"but it's individuals like you with zero authority and zero experience that have been contributing to the alcoholism and addictions problems in this country today."

Are you being a dick for any particular reason? Accusing me of contributing to the problem is asinine. Here's my 'zero experience'. I quit drinking at 23 after getting drunk five nights a week for several years. No meetings and cold turkey.

"What research did show was that individuals who committed to meetings and followed through (based on the records) had a high percentage of abstinence a year later."

Not according to AA. Unless you consider a ten percent success rate to be a 'high percentage'.

Ten percent is also the rate of cessation after one year for people like me that just plain quit. I appreciate your passion for the issue. But try not to be a dick about it.

Getting drunk five nights a week for several years? I wasn't much older than you when I quit, and maybe had five nights in five years when I wasn't drunk or drinking... And then there was drinking in the morning (when I could get myself up)

And it's a pity you didn't go to meetings long enough to hear that "one finger pointed at someone else, three pointing back" metaphor...

AA didn't release those ten percent figures, BTW... You've appropriated them from somewhere else...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous

No kidding on the first sentence in this one...

>AA tends to polarize observers into believers and non-believers, and discussion of AA often creates controversy rather than objective reflection. Moreover, a randomized study of AA is difficult: AA members are not randomly selected from the population of chronic alcoholics, with the possible exception of those who are mandated by courts to attend AA meetings; they are instead self-selected. There are two opposing types of self-selection bias: (1) drinkers may be motivated to stop drinking before they participate in AA (2) AA may attract the more severe and difficult cases. Controlled experiments with AA versus non-AA subjects are also difficult because AA is so easily accessible. Twelve-step groups, like AA, are not conducive to probability sampling of members. Research on AA is therefore susceptible to sampling bias.

>Every third year since 1968, AA has issued a pamphlet summarizing its latest triennial survey of meeting attendants. Additional published comments and analysis for academics and professionals have supplemented the survey results from 1970 through 1990. The 1990 commentary evaluated data of triennial surveys from 1977 through 1989 and found that one quarter (26%) of those who first attend an AA meeting are still attending after one year. Furthermore, nearly one third (31.5%) leave the program after one month, and by the end of the third month, over half (52.6%) leave. After the first year, the rate of attrition slows. Only those in the first year were recorded by month. About 40% of the members sober for less than a year will remain another year. About 80% of those sober less than five years will remain sober and active in the fellowship another year. About 90% of the members sober five years or more will remain sober and active in the fellowship another year. Those who remained sober outside the fellowship could not be calculated using the survey results.

>Loran Archer's analysis of AA's triennial membership surveys conducted from 1977 through 1989. deduces that:

>The 95% dropout rate, claimed by some of A.A.'s modern critics,is inaccurate and based on flawed statistics. Rather than 5% of A.A. members remaining at the end of one year a more accurate estimate is that 36% remain attending A.A. at the end of one year and 32% are still attending at the end of 20 years.

The good ole line of 'you weren't as addicted as I was'. It could be that I was not as addicted as you were. Or, it could be that my physiology gave me more control and discretion as to what time of day I decided to start drinking. By that same measure my physiology may have given me an edge in quiting.

And Wikipedia could neither confirm nor deny the point I made. Show me a study that shows AA is any more effective than just doing it. If you want to go the AA route and you quit then great. But until you can show that 12 steps is better than one then my point stands. Quitting is a choice. How you choose to execute that choice is irrelevant.

And why are you seriously putting up this. "one finger pointed at someone else, three pointing back". Remember saying this? "but it's individuals like you with zero authority and zero experience that have been contributing to the alcoholism and addictions problems in this country today." Again, don't be a dick. But even more importantly, don't be a hypocrite.

And using process comments that are recognized as rude nearly everywhere except in the patriarchal kingdom of Morgdumb... That's because of their controlling nature, BTW, but I suppose that could be chalked to a cultural consideration...

And I used that metaphor because I figured you could handle it. Letting you know you brought a boy scout knife to a gun fight might be a little too offensive...

Probably owing to that attitude you've exhibited, you didn't even read the original post clearly, as evidenced by your addressing your sub as "Before you commit" and then proceeding to criticize AA. The original post was largely aimed at discussing Al-Anon (there's a difference you know). As the orginal poster was an e-buddy before this subject came up, I wasn't worried about problems on that end.

Now the burden of proof is on you; you made some claims and didn't back them up, and I was careful to document mine with peer-reviewed scientific material.

Now I'd tell you to go home and get a real gun, but you'd probably shoot yourself somewhere it hurts...

SLC
Figuring he ought to offer raptorjesus a cab ride for a successfully fullfilled RFM board prophecy

Or do you have so many spats you can't keep track?

When I present some hard objective facts...

That behavior is exactly like a TBM troll; you get all hostile, accusative, sanctimonious, and impugn my motives...

Good way to stay sick...

sorry this is not placed correctly....
AHH NO WONDER MY THREAD AINT POPPIN!! it has been adressed by the cabster!! TRY NOT TO GET THAT bp up too high on these posters that hate.... good for you Cabbie for staying sober as long as you have! :)...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2010 11:31AM by bignevermo.

Over the Summer I went to church a number of times with a visiting sister. The program was announced in every church meeting each week-- it was like they were pushing to get people to it.

I'm all for getting help, but considering what the LDS think about alcohol, I think I'd trust them about as much as the Scientologists, which is to say, not at all.

I don't think the church would directly support a recovery program that they couldn't control enough to represent their values.

"Narconon" is the Scientologist's version, BTW. It's important it not be confused with "Nar-Anon" which is similar to "Al-Anon," but is for families and friends of those affected by drug addiction rather than alcohol (not that alcohol isn't a drug).

And per the tradition orginally established in AA, Al-Anon, NA, CA, CMA, and Nar-Anon, none of these groups are "affiliated with any sect, denomination, organization, or institution."

My dear late mom was a fall down mean drunk and the whole church knew. One day a lady took her to AA and she recovered. Thank the Higher Power. I wish us kids had known about Alateen. It was very hard on us, But all's well that ends well.

I attended a 30 or 40 year class reunion where everyone went around and spoke about what they'd been up to.

About the 10th person to speak said, "This is starting to sound like a Sacrament meeting"

The next person who spoke said, "I though it sounded more like a 12 Step Meeting!"

I don't know why people who don't attend AA have such a problem with it. It works for a lot of people, but not everybody. That's the bottom line.

AA and NA do not work for me for many psychological, social, and emotional reasons, but that doesn't mean the programs are worthless. My last therapist agreed with me why these programs don't work for ME. It's an individual process. Yeesh.