Aa history Lovers 2010 moderators Nancy Olson and Glenn F. Chesnut page
Yüklə 25,47 Mb.
|
|
payments to Bill later increased over time and were subsequently defined in a manner that automatically adjusted them to prevent against "cheap books", inflation and reduction of purchasing power. The matter of transferable royalties did not emerge until 1961 even though Bill negotiated a formal arrangement in 1958. Advisory actions of the General Service Conference show the
progression of the royalty agreement: a. The 1958 General Service Conference "approved the action of the General Service Board in re-assigning to Bill royalty rights in his three books [the Big Book, 12&12 and AA Comes of Age] and in books that he would write in the future, for the duration of the copyrights involved. [Note: later it came to also include As Bill Sees It - formerly The AA Way of Life].
"The
Conference recognizes that the publication of cheap editions of AA Big Books would probably reduce the income to World Services, and Bill W's personal income. This Conference unanimously suggests the following to the Trustees: to add a rider to Bill's royalty contract to the effect that, if cheaper books are ever published, Bill's royalties be increased by an amount sufficient to keep the royalty income at the same average level it had been for the five years before cheaper books were published; (further, that) as time goes on, if inflation erodes the purchasing power of this income, the Trustees will adjust the royalties to produce the same approximate purchasing power; this to be effective during the lifetime of Bill and Lois and Bill's legatees." c. The 1964 General Service Conference recommended that: "An agreement between
Bill W., co-founder, and AAWS, Inc. covering royalties derived from Bill's writings be approved. - Under terms of the contract, a royalty of 15% is paid to Bill, except that no royalties are paid on "overseas editions." Royalties are to be paid to Bill and Lois, his wife, during their lifetimes; following the deaths of Bill and Lois, royalties revert in shares of royalties to living heirs. These shares revert to AAWS upon the deaths of the beneficiaries. Not more than 20% may be bequeathed to any heir under the age of 40 years as of the date of the agreement (April 29, 1963). The contract provides protection of royalties against "cheap books" and protection of AAWS and Bill against fluctuations in general economic conditions. AAWS retains the right of "first refusal" on any future literary works of Bill's." In Bill W. (pg 120), Francis Hartigan states that the main beneficiary of the
royalties was Lois (when she was in her 90's). She was prevented from returning any funds based on the AA Tradition of declining outside contributions. Given
Hartigan's relationship to Lois, his reporting would seem authoritative and is substantiated by the probate records. Pass it On (pg 236) states "While this royalty was at first very modest, it eventually became substantial and provided
both Bill and Lois a lifetime income." Again, this is not a pejorative. While
there was a time when Bill and Lois were unable to purchase clothing and depended on others for a place to live, they eventually came to have a comfortable living and deservedly so.
images of the original probate court documents. They also include many of Bill's probate
records as well. The following information is not considered "edited": 1. When Bill passed away (1971) his gross estate was nearly $219,000. His will
originally specified legatees to whom he would pass life-interests if Lois did
not survive him. The codicil extended authority to Lois to pass life-interests in royalties to her legatees (with age restrictions). Regrettably (and somewhat
awkwardly) the codicil also reduced Lois' overall royalty interests to 90% with
the remaining 10% assigned to Bill's mistress, Helen W. [Hartigan is rather open
about this as are other authors]. 2. When Lois passed away (1988) her gross estate was nearly 4 million dollars.
Nell Wing was bequeathed Lois' jewelry and personal effects. All other tangible
property was bequeathed to the Stepping Stones Foundation. Of the living legatees, Nell Wing was assigned a rather large share. Again, this is not a pejorative. She was dearly loved by both Lois and Bill.
living at the time of her death (Oct. 5, 1988). No more than 20% could be assigned to legatees under the age of 40 on April 29, 1963. Two legatees fell into this category - one born June 8, 1923 the other September 18, 1923. I do not know if they survive today. If living, they would be 79. 4. In a 1989 IRS ruling, the 80% portion that Lois had to assign to legatees over age 40 was excluded from the value of her estate. Two legatees in her probate documents were indicated as predeceased. The Stepping Stones Foundation received a rather large assignment of royalties for 10 years after Lois' death.
the "Stepping Stones" property (the home of Bill and Lois) for any purpose. This is also noted in Not God (pg 267). No published advisory action could be found that declined an attempt by Lois to donate royalty revenues back to AA. This would appear to be a function of Tradition Seven. Expiration of Royalties ______________________________ Message #861 http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/AAHistoryLovers/message/861 Lois outlived Bill by seventeen years and was provided royalties to her own estate for ten years past her death, subject to the original royalty agreements, and by 1998 all the royalty commitments were basically fulfilled. Nell Wing is still alive and in a nursing home, and there may be a distant niece or nephew that might receive a very small stipend today, and that's all the royalties that are distributed today---they most likely come from Lois' estate and Will. Interestingly enough, Lois once offered to decline all royalties for contribution back into the AAWS General Fund and it was declined by the Conference. The major amounts of Lois' royalties were placed in the Stepping Stones Foundation as an endowment for the property -- again, their receipt ended in 1998, ten years after her death. - - - - There are no royalties from the Big Book or any other AA literature distributed today, in accordance with Bill's estate and Will and its Codicil changes. All
monies from AA literature, over expenses, go directly into the AAWS General Fund.
++++Message 6929. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Mark Whalon From: Aalogsdon . . . . . . . . . . . . 10/5/2010 12:21:00 AM IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII There are about a dozen copies for sale on ebay. - - - - Original message from: Jay Pees Subject: Re: Mark Whalon Anybody have a link to this Life magazine story? Jay Pees IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ++++Message 6930. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Why don''t you choose your own concept of God? From: John Barton . . . . . . . . . . . . 9/30/2010 3:02:00 PM
(jax760 at yahoo.com) Fellow History Lovers, My intent is not to bring controversy, but I believe if we carefully review the
facts on this question we will conclude that this event never occurred as described in Bill's Story. Below is the comparison between the original manuscript and the first printing, first edition big book of that portion of Bill's story that we are discussing. We can easily see that sometime prior to the publication of this first printing
on April 10, 1939 but after the printing of the multilith manuscript in early1939 (produced for comments) that the following four paragraphs were added to Bill's Story: Despite the living example of my friend there remained in me the vestiges of my old prejudice. The word God still aroused a certain antipathy. When the thought was expressed that there might be a God personal to me this feeling was intensified. I didn't like the idea. I could go for such conceptions as Creative
Intelligence, Universal Mind or Spirit of Nature but I resisted the thought of a
Czar of the Heavens, however loving His sway might be. I have since talked with
scores of men who felt the same way. My friend suggested what then seemed a novel idea. He said, "Why don't you choose your own conception of God?" That statement hit me hard. It melted the icy intellectual mountain in whose shadow I had lived and shivered many years. I stood in the sunlight at last. It was only a matter of being willing to believe in a power greater than myself. Nothing more was required of me to make my beginning. I saw that growth could start from that point. Upon a foundation of complete willingness I might build what I saw in my friend. Would I have it? Of course I would! I draw your attention to the use of italics in the second and fourth paragraphs. Bill and or the editors obviously wished to place emphasis on the importance of Ebby's advice as well as the far reaching conclusion he (Bill) reached as the result of his hearing and considering this proposal. In all of Bill's Story the only other occasion of adding emphasis is when he documents his profound reaction to Ebby's phone call and his having stopped drinking: "He was sober"
of these statements and events. They now become the central theme of Bill's story, the how and why, the coup de grace, the moral of the story, the punch line, the chorus, the crescendo. It would certainly be impossible to tell the story without them would it not? If these things, (icy mountains melting, finally standing in the sunlight i.e. "psychic change") had actually happened to you could you possibly re-tell your story without them? Of course not!
what
Ebby said and its profound effect on Bill, initiating the process, (that was completed in Towns), the "psychic change" (I stood in the Sunlight at last). For my thinking, the reason these paragraphs are not contained in the earlier version of Bill's story is because it probably never happened as written. Had it
truly occurred it would have to have been included in the earlier version (original manuscript). You wouldn't report the story without its most profound "truth"!
message; (surrender to Jesus Christ) what other message did the Oxford Groupers
carry? Lois may have provided us the answer for the "message change" in Lois Remembers p.113 In a AAHL post # 4409 Bill Schaberg talks about the four inserted paragraphs that appear written by hand in the printers copy. It seems there were no notations in the manuscript to indicate the source or reason for the revision. Dr. James Wainwright Howard from Montclair, New Jersey (see AAHL post # 6026)
may have been the culprit. As you know he suggested dozens of edits to soften
the book and make it more suggestive (let him choose his own concept could have
been his suggestion). Or it may have been needed to support the change "God as you understand him" as made first to step three and then later again to step eleven. The "committee" (Hank, Bill, Fitz, Ruth, Herb and possibly others) may
have thought this change to the story would tie up the "loose ends" into one neat, credible package. By the way, in the tape recordings I have heard of Bill telling "the bed time story" I don't recall him ever saying that Ebby said to him "Why don't you choose your own concept. of God" That's not to say such doesn't exist but this merits a further look. Although Bill wrote it (or approved its inclusion if written by Hank or Ruth) for the big book he may have had trouble repeating that which wasn't true when telling his story. Quite "revealing" in Bill's autobiography (Bill W. My First Forty Years) there is no mention of it. I also seen to remember Mel B. saying Ebby could never recall the conversation in Bill's Kitchen other then they argued a bit over religion. God Bless, John Barton P.S. I remember feeling a bit down when this first came to light in my mind but
recalled how many have been helped by this statement, so I am not concerned about its historical accuracy. I believe its inclusion in the story was Providence.
(aliasjb at gmail.com) Seems to me that I have read about earlier manifestations of choosing a God of your own understanding, but I don't remember where. Certainly it was not Oxford Group orthodoxy. OG was distinctly Christian, and the preacher in New York where Bill attended (Sam Shoemaker) was an Anglican in good standing.
concept of God? From: J. Lobdell . . . . . . . . . . . . 10/6/2010 5:55:00 PM
Episcopalian), yes. In good standing, well, there is considerable indication that "Soapy Sam" was regarded by much of the "establishment" of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the U.S.A. (PECUSA) as slightly off the course.
got
his S.T.B. there in 1961 -- but discovered only last year, talking to my friend,
that he had "had to move heaven and earth" to get Sam on the campus at all in the face of opposition from that establishment -- and this was some years after Sam left NYC for Calvary Pittsburgh. "God as you understand him" was in fact a Shoemaker idea (Dick B. has provided a fair amount of documentation on this).
"infra
dig" by PECUSA. - - - - From GC the moderator: Jared, right on target. Thank you. I think this is the article by Dick B. to which you are referring: ============================================ http://www.aabibliography.com/dickbhtml/article25.html "'God as we understood Him' .... Where Did This Phrase Originate? .... the very
probable, real source -- the Reverend Samuel Moor Shoemaker, Jr., Rector of Calvary Episcopal Church in New York .... Surrender As Much of Yourself As You Can to As Much of God As You Understand So they prayed together, opening their minds to as much of God as he understood ... (Shoemaker, Children of the Second Birth, p. 47 ....)
much of
Christ as he understood (Shoemaker, Children of the Second Birth, p. 25 .... See
also, and compare In Memoriam Princeton, The Graduate Council, June 10, 1956,
pp. 2-3; and Shoemaker, How to Become a Christian, p. 72). The finding of God, moreover, is a progressive discovery; and there is so much
more for all of us to learn about him. (Shoemaker, How to Find God, p. 1). Begin honestly where you are. Horace Bushnell once said, Pray to the dim God,
confessing the dimness for honesty’s sake. I was with a man who prayed his first
real prayer in these words: O God, if there be a God, help me now because I need
it. God sent him help. He found faith. He found God. . . God will come through
to you and make Himself known (Shoemaker, How to Find God, p. 6. See and compare: Alcoholics Anonymous, 3rd ed., p. 37: But He has come to all who have honestly sought Him. When we drew near to Him. He disclosed Himself to us! See also the Bible book so popular with the pioneers -- James: Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you, James 4:8). [A]ny honest person can begin the spiritual experiment by surrendering as much
of himself as he can, to as much of Christ as he understands (Shoemaker, Extraordinary Living for Ordinary Men, p. 76 ....) ... said Sam in substance: You simply start where you are in your understanding. You surrender as much of yourself as you can. To as much of God as you understand. Then, added Sam, God will come through to you, make Himself known, and enable you to understand more. You will come to believe. You will find God, said Sam. God will make Himself known .... He will make known Himself -- God, our Creator!" ============================================ And also, Frank Buchman was definitely NOT an orthodox Lutheran. His ideas would
never have held up to scrutiny by an orthodox Lutheran congregation that insisted on following the Augsburg Confession, Formula of Concord, and so on, let alone a super conservative Lutheran group like the Missouri Synod Lutherans. The very fact that Frank was reading and associating with Episcopalians, and Congregationalists like Horace Bushnell, and even -- God forbid! -- METHODISTS !!! (who make orthodox Lutherans really ANGRY) -- was prima facie evidence that he was no longer preaching the true Gospel message. To a good orthodox Lutheran, the fact that Frank went around telling people without equivocation that "faith without works is dead" was just the sort of denial of the Gospel message that you would expect from someone who hung around with Episcopalians and -- in particular -- Methodists!
a pile of straw and the book of Revelation doesn't reveal anything." He didn't like either of those two books of the New Testament, and believed that they led
ordinary Christians astray.) Also, if Ebby was preaching the message to Bill Wilson in Bill's kitchen in the
way that the Oxford Group had taught him, he would not have been preaching like
a frontier tent revivalist and haranguing Bill and telling him he had to get down on his knees and accept Jesus Christ as his personal savior right this minute or he would burn in the eternal fires of hell.
countries like China and India) against that kind of frontier tent revivalist teaching. The OG way of carrying out life-changing (which was what they called it) was to use the 5 Cs: 1. Confidence -- the person carrying the message had to first gain the other person's confidence. 2. Confession -- the only way life-changers could do this was to begin by honestly telling the other person about all their own faults and failings. 3. Conviction -- the people whose lives you wanted to change, had to become convinced that their present spiritual condition was too miserable and horrible to endure any longer. They had to become WILLING TO CHANGE. (How many Oxford Groupers did it take to change a light bulb? Only one, but the
light bulb had to really want to change.) 4. Conversion -- a real life changing event could only occur at that point. This
was evidenced by a willingness, right on the spot, to go and make restitution to a small number of people at whom they had been holding major and obvious resentments. (There was nothing in the Oxford Group even remotely like the AA fourth step's
long written inventory and detailed spiritual self-diagnosis, nor the equally
long and involved AA process of carrying out your eighth and ninth step amends.)
hard work began. The people whom you had been working on, had to be helped and encouraged in every possible way, to continue in this good new life which they
had now chosen. The Oxford Group developed out of late nineteenth and early twentieth century
Protestant foreign missionary work in countries where the majority of the population were Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, or Confucianists. You cannot do effective missionary work among people who do not accept anything about Christianity at all -- who don't really even know anything much about genuine Christianity -- by insisting that they have to accept -- from the beginning and all in one fell swoop -- all of the hundreds of doctrines and dogmas that your particular form of Christianity adheres to. The reason why Frank Buchman and Sam Shoemaker were so effective at real life-changing was because they understood this.
- - - - > To: AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com > From: jax760@yahoo.com > Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:02:57 -0700 > Subject: [AAHistoryLovers] Re: Why don't you choose your own concept of God? >
Yüklə 25,47 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|