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].
b. The 1961 General Service Conference unanimously adopted a motion that
"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.
Lois Wilson's' estate was probated. Records can be found on the web as
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.
3. For the 90% of royalties she could assign, Lois' legatees had to be
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.
5. The 1972 General Service Conference voted unanimously that AA not accept
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.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++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
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
From John Barton and Jeff Bruce
- - - -
From: John Barton
(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"
The use of italics is obviously meant to indicate the absolute significance
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!
It seems to me the whole point of telling the story would now be to reveal
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"!
Of course Ebby would have come carrying the non-denominational Christian
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.
- - - -
From: Jeff Bruce
(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.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 6931. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Why don''t you choose your own
concept of God?
From: J. Lobdell . . . . . . . . . . . . 10/6/2010 5:55:00 PM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Re: Shoemaker as "Anglican in good standing" -- no. An Anglican (or rather
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.
I met Sam at the General Seminary ca 1959-60 as the guest of a friend who
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).
Remember Frank Buchman was a Lutheran and the OG was considered somewhat
"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 ....)
So he said that he would surrender as much of himself as he could, to as
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!
(Martin Luther himself said (rather famously) that "the epistle of James is
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.
The OG was a rebellion (which started among the Protestant missionaries to
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.)
5. Continuance -- the life-changers had to remember that this was where the
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.
Glenn C. (South Bend, Indiana)
- - - -
> 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?
>
> From John Barton and Jeff Bruce
Dostları ilə paylaş: |