What the NA Basic Text really says about Step 2

co...@anon.gov

unread,

Dec 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/26/97

to

| STEP TWO

| "We came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves
| could restore us to sanity."

| The Second Step is necessary if we expect to achieve any
| sort of ongoing recovery.

As are all the Steps.

| The First Step leaves us with
| the need to believe in something that can help us with
| our powerlessness, uselessness, and helplessness.
.....................^^^^^^^^^^^......^^^^^^^^^^^^

Step 1 deals with powerlessness and unmanageability;
uselessness and helplessness are forms of self-pity which
Step 1 does not address. This is NA opinion.

| The First Step has left a vacuum in our lives.

What follows then is that Step 1 is an event.

| We need
| to find something to fill that void. This is the purpose
| of the Second Step.

This implies Step 2 is an event as well because one can
describe the exact event in an exact moment in time when
one _finds_ something.

| Some of us didn't take this step seriously at first;

And some still do not take this step seriously.

| we passed over it with a minimum of concern,

And those who pass over it with a minimum of concern can
not describe in exact personal detail how they did Step 2.

The first mention of sanity.

|| We have a disease: progressive, incurable and fatal.

NA party line in violation of Tradition 10 which states NA
should have no opinion on outside issues (such as the medical
terminology of addiction as a disease). Subsequent related
paragraphs are marked "||".

|| One way or another we went out and bought our destruction
|| on the time plan! All of us, from the junkie snatching
|| purses to the sweet little old ladies hitting two or
|| three doctors for legal prescriptions, have one thing
|| in common: we seek our destruction a bag at a time, a
|| few pills at a time, or a bottle at a time until we die.
|| This is at least part of the insanity of addiction. The
|| price may seem higher for the addict who prostitutes for
|| a fix than it is for the addict who merely lies to a doctor,
|| but ultimately both pay with their lives. Insanity is
|| repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.

Notice emphasis on insanity, not sanity.

|| Many of us realize when we get to the Program that we
|| have gone back time and again to using, even though we
|| knew that we were destroying our lives by doing so.
|| Insanity is using day after day knowing that only physical
|| and mental destruction comes when we do. The most obvious
|| insanity of the disease of addiction is the obsession to
|| use drugs.

| Ask yourself this question: Do I believe it would be insane
| to walk up to someone and say, "May I please have a heart
| attack or a fatal accident?" If you can agree that this
| would be an insane thing, you should have no problem with
| the Second Step.

| The first thing we do in this Program is stop using. At
| this point we begin to feel the pain of living without
| drugs or anything to replace them. This pain forces us
| to seek a Power greater than ourselves that can relieve
| our obsession to use.

That pain is a motivator to do Step 2 is mistaken.
The motivator to do Step 2 is a longing to be healed by
coming closer to God. When one recognizes that longing
is the exact event when one accomplishes Step 2. That
discrete event in time must be personal, exact, and
describable in order to be real.

| The process of coming to believe is something that we
| seem to experience in similar ways.

Step 1 was an event. Suddenly Step 2 is not an event but
a process.

| One thing most of us
| lacked was a working relationship with a Higher Power.
| We begin to develop this relationship by simply admitting
| to the possibility of a Power greater than ourselves.

This is where NA equates "a Power greater than ourselves"
to "a Higher Power". It is in Step 2, not Step 3.

| Most of us have no trouble admitting that addiction had
| become a destructive force in our lives. Our best efforts
| resulted in ever greater destruction and despair. At some
| point we realized we needed the help of some Power greater
| than our addiction. Our understanding of a Higher Power is
| up to us. No one is going to decide for us. We can call it
| the group, the program, or we can call it God. The only
| suggested guidelines are that this Power be loving, caring
| and greater than ourselves.

It is impossible for an inanimate entity such as "the program"
to be loving and caring per se.

| We don't have to be religious to accept this idea.

Most NA's read this as "We should not be religious to accept
this idea."

| The point is that we open our minds to believe.

Keeping an open mind to believe implies the added responsibility
of the potential believer to respect the open mind of others.
However NA is universally anti-Christian in its adherence to the
principle that "NA is a spiritual, not religious". In practice,
the concepts of spiritual and religious are synonymous because
without either one the other would be in vain.

| We may have difficulty with this, but by keeping
| an open mind, sooner or later, we find the help we need.

| We talked and listened to others. We saw other people
| recovering, and they told us what was working for them.
| We began to see evidence of some Power that could not be
| fully explained. Confronted with this evidence, we began
| to accept the existence of a Power greater than ourselves.
| We can use this Power before we begin to understand it.

| As we see "coincidences" and miracles happening in our
| lives, our acceptance becomes trust. We grow to feel
| comfortable with our Higher Power as a source of strength.
| As we learn to trust this Power, we begin to overcome our
| fears of life.

| The process of coming to believe is a restoration to sanity.

Again the process notion, foreign to the event of Step 1. The
text is so general here as to be vague. Other than in the
text of Step 2 itself, this is only the second mention of the
word "sanity" but with no explanation given.

| The strength to move into action comes from this belief. We
| need to accept this step to start us on the road to recovery.

There is an enormous difference between "the need to accept"
Step 2, and "the necessity to do" Step 2. Part of the confusion
about Step 2 in NA may arise from the notion that Step 2 must be
accepted. But the fallacy of accepting is this: I can accept
that Step 2 is important, but unless I have some personal, real,
organic, describable experience with it, then Step 2 is not
meaningful to me.

| When our belief has grown, we are ready for Step Three.

The text begs the question: when will I know that my belief has
grown. The stock answer "you will know" does not follow. There
has to be some pivotal, organic event after which I can be certain
that I no longer believe but now know that a Power greater than
myself has restored me to sanity. That is an exact, personal event
which I must be able to describe to another to prove its reliability.

Ernie S.

unread,

Dec 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/26/97

to

An interesting evaluation. One question: Does not the second step
instruct us that a power greater than ourselves _could_ restore...? If
so, ( it does) this 'restoration" is, as you say, and "event". The step
does not indicate a time or place for this event, nor is there any
reason to think that this will take place at all!

My point is, yes, I agree step two follows step one. I agree step one is
an event. I disagree that step two is an event. At least the "payoff" is
not. I may agree that in order to have successfully worked step two, the
addict must, at a minimum, believe as the step says. However, I say that
it _is not_ necessary that the addict be restored to sanity prior to
working step three, the step clearly does not offer this. Therefore, all
that is required to work step three is a belief.

The NA text is, and IMHO will always be lacking in clarity. You have
done a good job of pointing out some of the weakness. I have known many
addicts who have read and cleaned up using the material, however. Does
it work? Another post, perhaps.

Ernie
(Email address altered to thwart the spamies)

"In the kingdom of ends everything has either value or dignity. Whatever
has a value can be replaced by something else which is equivalent;
whatever, on the other hand, is above all value, and therefore admits of
no equivalent, has a dignity."

Immanuel Kant 1785

--

Mongoose

unread,

Dec 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/26/97

to

Ya'll get the meaning here.

> The motivator to do Step 2 is a longing to be healed by
> coming closer to God.

What motivates us to "a longing to be healed?" Heal is the key word
here. This word in this context implies that some form of spiritual,
emotional, or spiritual injury or wound is present. What injury or
wound is without some pain? Henceforth you could say that pain
motivated us to a "longing to be healed", which anonymous clearly states
is the motivator to DO step 2. An implication that it has not been
accomplished yet.

> When one recognizes that longing
> is the exact event when one accomplishes Step 2. That
> discrete event in time must be personal, exact, and
> describable in order to be real.

But here he states that the "longing" is the event that occurs upon
ACCOMPLISHING the second step. Taking this into account, your earlier
statement that "longing to be healed by coming closer to God" is the
motivator to do step 2 is contradictory. Please restate.

> | The process of coming to believe is something that we
> | seem to experience in similar ways.
>
> Step 1 was an event. Suddenly Step 2 is not an event but
> a process.
>
> | One thing most of us
> | lacked was a working relationship with a Higher Power.
> | We begin to develop this relationship by simply admitting
> | to the possibility of a Power greater than ourselves.
>
> This is where NA equates "a Power greater than ourselves"
> to "a Higher Power". It is in Step 2, not Step 3.
>
> | Most of us have no trouble admitting that addiction had
> | become a destructive force in our lives. Our best efforts
> | resulted in ever greater destruction and despair. At some
> | point we realized we needed the help of some Power greater
> | than our addiction. Our understanding of a Higher Power is
> | up to us. No one is going to decide for us. We can call it
> | the group, the program, or we can call it God. The only
> | suggested guidelines are that this Power be loving, caring
> | and greater than ourselves.
>
> It is impossible for an inanimate entity such as "the program"
> to be loving and caring per se.

That much is true.

> | We don't have to be religious to accept this idea.
>
> Most NA's read this as "We should not be religious to accept
> this idea."
>
> | The point is that we open our minds to believe.
>
> Keeping an open mind to believe implies the added responsibility
> of the potential believer to respect the open mind of others.
> However NA is universally anti-Christian in its adherence to the
> principle that "NA is a spiritual, not religious". In practice,
> the concepts of spiritual and religious are synonymous because
> without either one the other would be in vain.
>
> | We may have difficulty with this, but by keeping
> | an open mind, sooner or later, we find the help we need.
>
> | We talked and listened to others. We saw other people
> | recovering, and they told us what was working for them.
> | We began to see evidence of some Power that could not be
> | fully explained. Confronted with this evidence, we began
> | to accept the existence of a Power greater than ourselves.
> | We can use this Power before we begin to understand it.
>
> | As we see "coincidences" and miracles happening in our
> | lives, our acceptance becomes trust. We grow to feel
> | comfortable with our Higher Power as a source of strength.
> | As we learn to trust this Power, we begin to overcome our
> | fears of life.
>
> | The process of coming to believe is a restoration to sanity.

It reads (page24 BT 5th edition)" The process of coming to believe
RESTORES us to sanity.

> Again the process notion, foreign to the event of Step 1. The
> text is so general here as to be vague. Other than in the
> text of Step 2 itself, this is only the second mention of the
> word "sanity" but with no explanation given.

> | The strength to move into action comes from this belief. We
> | need to accept this step to start us on the road to recovery.

What action are they referring to? Perhaps the entire completion of the
steps?

> There is an enormous difference between "the need to accept"
> Step 2, and "the necessity to do" Step 2. Part of the confusion
> about Step 2 in NA may arise from the notion that Step 2 must be
> accepted. But the fallacy of accepting is this: I can accept
> that Step 2 is important, but unless I have some personal, real,
> organic, describable experience with it, then Step 2 is not
> meaningful to me.

Such as? Elaborate.

> | When our belief has grown, we are ready for Step Three.
>
> The text begs the question: when will I know that my belief has
> grown. The stock answer "you will know" does not follow. There
> has to be some pivotal, organic event after which I can be certain
> that I no longer believe but now know that a Power greater than
> myself has restored me to sanity. That is an exact, personal event
> which I must be able to describe to another to prove its reliability.

Exact personal event eh? Seeing a rainbow on the horizon? Having God
visit you in a dream? Or is it as subtile as finding that within your
life, is an earnest and ongoing desire to DO the will of God. This is
interesting.
--
Sincerely,
Rob A.
TTTT (Today's tantalizing, tumultuous, tidbit). If pro is for, and con
is against, then Congress must be against progress.

co...@anon.gov

unread,

Dec 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/27/97

to

"Ernie S." <er...@mho.net> posted with deletions:

> An interesting evaluation. One question: Does not the second step
> instruct us that a power greater than ourselves _could_ restore...?

In the alpha, beta, gamma of the AA BB, gamma (c) reads:

"that God could and would if He were sought".
................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> If
> so, ( it does) this 'restoration" is, as you say, and "event". The step
> does not indicate a time or place for this event, nor is there any
> reason to think that this will take place at all!

Well, it is presumed it will take place, but no date, time, place is specified
because it is dependent on God working in each of our lives as He sees fit.

> My point is, yes, I agree step two follows step one. I agree step one is
> an event. I disagree that step two is an event. At least the "payoff" is
> not. I may agree that in order to have successfully worked step two, the
> addict must, at a minimum, believe as the step says.

For those who have successfully accomplished Step 2, there is ALWAYS a personal
incident (event) where they truly realized God was doing for them what they
could not do for themselves AND which caused them to realize that they KNEW
they had done Step 2.

That revelation is exactly what I have been suggesting that one writes about in
order to isolate it and understand it and move on in recovery to Steps 3-9.

It is the revelation (and exposition) of that exact incident (event) which
proves one has done Step 2 which is the critical step in my view to avoid
relapse, "jails, institutions, and death".

It may be that some have done Step 2 and simply do not realize it until they
think back and remember EXACTLY what a happened. Then they get an "ah hah"
which they can relate to others who have not gotten the "ah hah" yet.

> However, I say that
> it _is not_ necessary that the addict be restored to sanity prior to
> working step three, the step clearly does not offer this.

Now we're onto Step 3, but without an exposition of one's Step 2 above. How
can one be sure one has done Step 2? One can write exactly about how it
happened!

> Therefore, all
> that is required to work step three is a belief.

No. All that is required to work Step 3 is:

1. Having done Step 2 which assumes one has done Step 1;

2. Getting on one's knees (important here, even for Jewish people) for the
full effect; and

3. Saying the Third Step prayer, which is the decision in action. (The AA
version of the prayer is a bit more elegant, longer, and more inclusive; I am
surprised that NA did not originally use it verbatim -- probably the NIH not
invented here syndrome.)

grace

unread,

Dec 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/27/97

to

On Sat, 27 Dec 1997 05:31:12 GMT, co...@anon.gov wrote:

>For those who have successfully accomplished Step 2, there is ALWAYS a personal
>incident (event) where they truly realized God was doing for them what they
>could not do for themselves AND which caused them to realize that they KNEW
>they had done Step 2.

>It may be that some have done Step 2 and simply do not realize it until they
>think back and remember EXACTLY what a happened. Then they get an "ah hah"
>which they can relate to others who have not gotten the "ah hah" yet.

The FIRST event for me was when I was still in treatment and I was
talking to the Chaplain one day, telling I wanted to stay clean but
didn't think I could, that a part of me still wanted to use, since the
last time I used on the way to treatment sucked. He asked me did I
believe God could help me stay clean. I said yes, after I remembered
how I got in treatment..... prayed for God to please help me stop (no
promises, bargains, etc like I had always done b4). Less than a week
after I prayed I ended up in a treatment center. Well, the priest
said, I could pray to have FAITH, pray to SEE THE LIGHT AT THE END OF
THE TUNNEL, pray for BELIEF THAT I COULD STAY CLEAN. I went back to
my room that night and prayed for those things. When I woke up the
next day, I believed I could stay clean, instead of thinking i
couldn't stay clean. That was in January of 1987. There have been
many things to increase my faith in God, and my belief that he can
restore me to sanity, but those are the first 2---> that I ended up in
treatment after I prayed for help & that my attitude changed about
staying clean after I prayed for it to change.
lucy
ps I can see we're finally moving on to step 3, but I thought of that
when i read this post.

Robert Mark White

unread,

Dec 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/27/97

to

co...@anon.gov wrote in message <6819s4$2n9$9...@gte2.gte.net>...

>| STEP TWO
>
>| "We came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves
>| could restore us to sanity."
>
>| The Second Step is necessary if we expect to achieve any
>| sort of ongoing recovery.
>
>As are all the Steps.
>
>| The First Step leaves us with
>| the need to believe in something that can help us with
>| our powerlessness, uselessness, and helplessness.
>.....................^^^^^^^^^^^......^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Step 1 deals with powerlessness and unmanageability;
>uselessness and helplessness are forms of self-pity which
>Step 1 does not address. This is NA opinion.
>

in your opinion, however for me it was a fact it did offer hope cause it was
numbered number 1 and i saw that there were 11 more to go so there was hope.
often we have to define the problem before we can work on it.

>| The First Step has left a vacuum in our lives.
>
>What follows then is that Step 1 is an event.
>
>| We need
>| to find something to fill that void. This is the purpose
>| of the Second Step.

actually it is a realization of a reality that i was just coming to
understand alittle at that point. but thats another step.

>
>This implies Step 2 is an event as well because one can
>describe the exact event in an exact moment in time when
>one _finds_ something.

event - hell no, come on man it says something not a event
this something could be a process. as it is for most of us.

>
>| Some of us didn't take this step seriously at first;
>
>And some still do not take this step seriously.
>
>| we passed over it with a minimum of concern,

yes your right many of us refuse to allow ourslves to come to beleive in
something that our dogma say we cant beleive in. those people already have
the answers to god the universe and other things and refuse to come to terms
with their only stupidity. those people are really Stuck. they continually
ask others about their second step cause the didnt get it.

>
>And those who pass over it with a minimum of concern can
>not describe in exact personal detail how they did Step 2.
>

if it happens to be a single organic event fine but it doesnt have to be god
works in mysterise ways and not the same way for every body. thus we have
different religions.

>| only to
>| find the next steps would not work until we worked this
>| one. Even when we admitted we needed help with our drug
>| problem, many of us would not admit to the need for
>| faith and sanity.
>
>The first mention of sanity.
>
>|| We have a disease: progressive, incurable and fatal.
>
>NA party line in violation of Tradition 10 which states NA
>should have no opinion on outside issues (such as the medical
>terminology of addiction as a disease). Subsequent related
>paragraphs are marked "||".

well if we can have A contradiction, then Christianity can have as many as
they want ok? I dont see it! we have a disease, its our way of discribing
our problem. how is that a contradiction?

>
>|| One way or another we went out and bought our destruction
>|| on the time plan! All of us, from the junkie snatching
>|| purses to the sweet little old ladies hitting two or
>|| three doctors for legal prescriptions, have one thing
>|| in common: we seek our destruction a bag at a time, a
>|| few pills at a time, or a bottle at a time until we die.
>|| This is at least part of the insanity of addiction. The
>|| price may seem higher for the addict who prostitutes for
>|| a fix than it is for the addict who merely lies to a doctor,
>|| but ultimately both pay with their lives. Insanity is
>|| repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.
>
>Notice emphasis on insanity, not sanity.

yes your right if you know nothing about something and everything about the
opposite thing often you have to define what you seek by what it is not.
thus the emphasis on insanity. if we can understand that we are insane then
we can seek sanity or at least recognize the need for it.

>
>|| Many of us realize when we get to the Program that we
>|| have gone back time and again to using, even though we
>|| knew that we were destroying our lives by doing so.
>|| Insanity is using day after day knowing that only physical
>|| and mental destruction comes when we do. The most obvious
>|| insanity of the disease of addiction is the obsession to
>|| use drugs.
>
>| Ask yourself this question: Do I believe it would be insane
>| to walk up to someone and say, "May I please have a heart
>| attack or a fatal accident?" If you can agree that this
>| would be an insane thing, you should have no problem with
>| the Second Step.
>
>| The first thing we do in this Program is stop using. At
>| this point we begin to feel the pain of living without
>| drugs or anything to replace them. This pain forces us
>| to seek a Power greater than ourselves that can relieve
>| our obsession to use.

well maybe for you, you were not in pain i was, was living a nightmare i
sought relief from the pain of living. the spiritual part of me the seeker,
felt a enormous pain a seperation from God and myself and the rest of
humanity.

>
>That pain is a motivator to do Step 2 is mistaken.
>The motivator to do Step 2 is a longing to be healed by
>coming closer to God. When one recognizes that longing
>is the exact event when one accomplishes Step 2. That
>discrete event in time must be personal, exact, and
>describable in order to be real.
>

again your so close, but your dogma gets in the way. allow others to have
their experence with God as God sees fit to show himself to them.

>
| The process of coming to believe is something that we
>| seem to experience in similar ways.
>
>Step 1 was an event. Suddenly Step 2 is not an event but
>a process.
>

damm right and on going and continuous and lifelong. It is not something you
can study in a book and learn all about or by in a liscense. it a process
you go through for as long as you are willing to do it. when will you be
willing to start the process? Be openminded allow The god of your
misunderstanding to reveal itself to you as you need it not as someone in
the past needed it but as you Collin james need it. without dogma hopefully.

>| One thing most of us
>| lacked was a working relationship with a Higher Power.
>| We begin to develop this relationship by simply admitting
>| to the possibility of a Power greater than ourselves.
>

Dogma prevents a working relationship cause you think you already know it
all cause you know dogma. God is not about rules or laws. God is about love
and that is very diffacult to write down.

>This is where NA equates "a Power greater than ourselves"
>to "a Higher Power". It is in Step 2, not Step 3.
>

thats right part of the process again. they sneak God in peice meal as we
can handle it.

>| Most of us have no trouble admitting that addiction had
>| become a destructive force in our lives. Our best efforts
>| resulted in ever greater destruction and despair. At some
>| point we realized we needed the help of some Power greater
>| than our addiction. Our understanding of a Higher Power is
>| up to us. No one is going to decide for us. We can call it
>| the group, the program, or we can call it God. The only
>| suggested guidelines are that this Power be loving, caring
>| and greater than ourselves.
>
>It is impossible for an inanimate entity such as "the program"
>to be loving and caring per se.
>

your right again or sort off.
unless the people in it act loving and caring and are considered greater
than oneself.

but that doesnt prevent us from starting with that idea of a hp. I did. mY
understanding evolved as i became willing to learn and grow and accept new
ideas about a power greater than myself or higher power and finally God that
were not writen in my old dogma about god that i had learned in churches.

>| We don't have to be religious to accept this idea.
>
>Most NA's read this as "We should not be religious to accept
>this idea."
>

again because of the religious nature of the religiuos people who would want
to be religious.

>| The point is that we open our minds to believe.
>
>Keeping an open mind to believe implies the added responsibility
>of the potential believer to respect the open mind of others.
>However NA is universally anti-Christian in its adherence to the
>principle that "NA is a spiritual, not religious". In practice,
>the concepts of spiritual and religious are synonymous because
>without either one the other would be in vain.

Collin i was with you till here. I was think maybe you changed maybe you
were getting better. then Bam just like before you screw up. NA is not anti
anything it is just not religious.

religion and spirutality are not one in the same. Religion is a man made
way of worshiping God. Spirituality is Gods way of interacting with us and
having us realize it.
I will admit some people in religions are spiritual. However, that was a Big
word "Some" not all. I know people such as your self who are very religious,
but have no idea about spirituality, because it defies your dogma. Only
those who act religious in your approved ways are consider saved by your
dogma. your dogma is not even in the bible, it is man made, it has no
validity, it does not exist in the spiritual realm. I understand why you
seek to understanding the second step of others, cause you seek God. That is
honorable but to do that we must forsake our previous prejudices about God
and our old dogmas. These did not help us in the past and do not work in the
present either. To have a spiritual awaking of any kind we must open our
eyes. Jesus said to the parises," you obey the letter of the law, but know
not the spirit of the law." this is the problem with religious people such
as yourself, you obey the letter of the law, but no not the spirit of the
law. The law is Love.

the reason some NA members find christanity so offensive is its dogmatic and
seemingly superior nature. this is what allowed me to suspect your identity
in your postings long before your were outted so to speak.

If you truly seek to understand spirituality then i am more than willing to
reopen the dialog between us. if you meerly wish to try to convert me and
others to your religious not spiritual view point forget it. I am willing to
be here and flame you till hells hounds come home. It is up to you. Your
religious views are not superior in anyway. the problem is you dont
understand the difference. you want to quote scripture and cannon law or
some other sourse. i only care whats in your heart not in your head. God
speaks to us in our heart or our soul not though man made dogma. I had to
renounce the dogma of my upbring. this almost killed me cause i had nothing
to replace it with for years. Finaly in NA i experence directly The God of
my misunderstanding. I say misunderstanding because if i think i understand
God i am a Fool. I think anybody who thinks they have the only approved
version of Gods will for us is crazy. No one no group of humans have and or
can ever understand God in his fullness. Ocassionly a few have understood a
tiny part of God's essence and tried to tell others. When i think i know God
and all there is to know about him i become closed minded to others and
their peices of the puzzle and am unable to learn as the God my
misundestanding becomes willing to teach me. This is your problem also. You
must stop thinking you have the answers, when all you have are questions. If
you ask a question and dont like the answer, it doenst mean the answer is
wrong. You and i have fought this one many times in the past.

I have never met a person to dumb for this program but have met many who are
just too damm smart to get this simple idea.

and yes the second step is a event so to speak, in that it occurs after the
first step and before the third. However i beleive it is also continium also
in that i am still coming to beleive more and more every day that my higher
power that i call God can has and will continue to restore me to sanity.
based on my experence with this higher power. there was a moment that i
realized that there was a entity of some kind that loved me and was greater
than me and was not human but that was weeks or months somewhere along the
path of my second step.

I quote you now"

>Keeping an open mind to believe implies the added responsibility
>of the potential believer to respect the open mind of others.

that is what i seek from you the open mindednes to be allowed my
misunderstanding of the God of my misunderstanding without a smug, supeiour
attitude from you. if you wish to do so i am will to do the same for you.
other wise its war as we know it.

your are not Gods gift to NA, however i must point out i am not either. NA
is Gods gift to Addicts. I have a sig tag line somewhere that i sometimes
use, it goes like this. There is a God and i am not it and neither are you
what a blessing for the both of us.

>
>| We may have difficulty with this, but by keeping
>| an open mind, sooner or later, we find the help we need.
>
>| We talked and listened to others. We saw other people
>| recovering, and they told us what was working for them.
>| We began to see evidence of some Power that could not be
>| fully explained. Confronted with this evidence, we began
>| to accept the existence of a Power greater than ourselves.
>| We can use this Power before we begin to understand it.
>
>| As we see "coincidences" and miracles happening in our
>| lives, our acceptance becomes trust. We grow to feel
>| comfortable with our Higher Power as a source of strength.
>| As we learn to trust this Power, we begin to overcome our
>| fears of life.
>
>| The process of coming to believe is a restoration to sanity.
>
>Again the process notion, foreign to the event of Step 1. The
>text is so general here as to be vague. Other than in the
>text of Step 2 itself, this is only the second mention of the
>word "sanity" but with no explanation given.

it speaks in generalities so that anyone of any previous belief or lack of
belief may have this process without becoming a christian.

again i know you seek sanity, seek god on the inside not in your head but in
your heart God is there and problly it will say i dont care how you worship
me as longs you do. that is openmindedness. If openmindedness is a spiritual
prinicple of the second step and spiritual principle and "spirit means -- of
God" and "principle--- means mode or way of behaving" then openmindedness is
a way of behaving of God. ie God is openminded. what a concept here folks
right. IF God is openminded and perfectly so then maybe the closed
mindedness of the christian dogma is not spiritual, or that of any religion.
There are many roads to god just as there are many rooms in his house.

The basic text says spiritual principle are never in conflict. If so then
why are religious princliples ever in conflict if they are spiritual
principles?

>| The strength to move into action comes from this belief. We
>| need to accept this step to start us on the road to recovery.
>
>There is an enormous difference between "the need to accept"
>Step 2, and "the necessity to do" Step 2. Part of the confusion
>about Step 2 in NA may arise from the notion that Step 2 must be
>accepted. But the fallacy of accepting is this: I can accept
>that Step 2 is important, but unless I have some personal, real,
>organic, describable experience with it, then Step 2 is not
>meaningful to me.

yes which maybe the fact that i have not used for a lenth of time which was
previously impossable for me to attain anyother way than through a higher
power. this was my first experence of the process of the coming to believe
in the higher power thing.

>
>| When our belief has grown, we are ready for Step Three.
>
>The text begs the question: when will I know that my belief has
>grown. The stock answer "you will know" does not follow. There
>has to be some pivotal, organic event after which I can be certain
>that I no longer believe but now know that a Power greater than
>myself has restored me to sanity. That is an exact, personal event
>which I must be able to describe to another to prove its reliability.

well yes my life was still so fucked up and no amount of belief in my higher
power could stop that. What i needed was to stop trying to control something
i could not control ( my life) when i got to that point on alone faith i
made a decision to turn my will and my life over to the care of the god of
my misunderstanding. I figured if he could keep me clean and he was God
then he would probably be better able to control my life than i could and i
needed to let him. but that's another step all together.

co...@anon.gov

unread,

Dec 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/27/97

to

"Robert Mark White" <mark...@ou.edu> posted with deletions:
.....................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Posting from an account where his mother works as a teacher in Oklahoma.

> >This implies Step 2 is an event as well because one can
> >describe the exact event in an exact moment in time when
> >one _finds_ something.

> event - hell no, come on man it says something not a event
> this something could be a process. as it is for most of us.

For the subsequent contradiction that Step 2 is an event, see below.

> well if we can have A contradiction, then Christianity can have as many as
> they want ok?

Mark White lives or used to live with or off of Steven N. in Denver.

Mark White is notorious for hating Christianity as much as Steven N.

Mark White is or was a B'Hai, a religion supposed to show tolerance to
Christianity.

However, some years ago I witnessed at least twice Mark White physically remove
(read this as literally throw out) people from meetings who chose to talk about
their spiritual progress in Christianity.

Mark White is a physically imposing bully, a religious thug, and a "recovery
demon" with his evil cronies who have one thing in common: they all worship
"The Traditions of Narcotics Anonymous".

I know for a fact that Mark White has not done Step 2, but may God bless him
for doing so.

> Dogma prevents a working relationship cause you think you already know it
> all cause you know dogma. God is not about rules or laws. God is about love
> and that is very diffacult to write down.

So difficult to write about love, in fact, that the best selling book of all
time, The Bible, is all about love. May God bless Mark White for reading The
Bible.

> the reason some NA members find christanity so offensive is its dogmatic and
> seemingly superior nature. this is what allowed me to suspect your identity
> in your postings long before your were outted so to speak.

....................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ad hominem; I try to stick to facts.

[ snipped is the long monolog thing about feelings ]

Feelings are completely unreliable and not trustworthy because they are not
based on facts.

The lesson is that one can make spiritual progress regardless of how one feels.

I note that nowhere does Mark White speak to the process of making spiritual
progress, contained in Steps 10, 11, and 12. Again, that is because Mark White
has not done Step 2 and hence has not gotten that far.

Thanks are due to Mark White in this regard. It was his behavior in NA to me
which in part first alerted me about what happens when Step 2 is not done, and
the integral relationship Step 2 has in preventing relapse in making possible a
solid foundation for the remaining steps and one's recovery.

> and yes the second step is a event so to speak, in that it occurs after the
> first step and before the third.

When one makes an assertion then contradicts it at the same time, that is known
as schizophrenic logic. Previously, Mark White emphatically stated Step 2 is
not an event but a process, but here he contradicts himself by stating Step 2
is an event: therefore Mark White is a text-book schizophrenic.

For the benefit of tolerant readers, I won't be wasting time with responding to
Mark White again. However, I would like to point out two false and unkind
statements by Mark White about me in an earlier post, for which no apology is
deemed necessary because I can attribute them to the heat of the argument:

1. Mark White stated that I bought my title of Bishop. That is mistaken. I
was duly elected to receive Holy Orders, have received valid Holy Orders as
Deacon, Priest, and Bishop, have a publicly defined mission in the Historic
Church, and am universally recognized as such by my peers.

2. Mark White stated that I bought my theological degrees. That is also
mistaken. My advanced degrees are earned from an accredited university (PhD)
and theological institute (STD). My advanced degrees were all earned some
years after my unfortunate initial contact with Mark White. Clearly it did not
occur to Mark White that others engage in continuing education, as does he
constantly now.

TigerNest

unread,

Dec 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/27/97

to

>From: Mongoose <ral...@fyiowa.infi.net>

>Exact personal event eh? Seeing a rainbow on the horizon? Having God
>visit you in a dream? Or is it as subtile as finding that within your
>life, is an earnest and ongoing desire to DO the will of God. This is
>interesting.

Maybe.. but he OBVIOUSLY has not learned the KISS principle!

jazzzman

He who begins by loving Christianity better than truth, will proceed by loving
his own sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself
better than all.
Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834), English poet, critic.

Robert Mark White

unread,

Dec 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/27/97

to

Well i am impressed with your forgiving attitude Colin.

Phony on your part but impressive at first glance. It is unfortunate that
you dont recognize sarcasm when you see or you have understood the reference
to the event between the first and third step. but your manic phase is still
bothering you. as for your lies about me literally through someone out of a
meeting because the were Christians is of course false. the only time i have
even come close to having anyone removed from a meeting because of a
religion disagreement is when you screwed up and started preaching in the
H&I meeting in federal prison and then i went through channels and had you
removed from attending the H&I panel. i have never ever manhandled anyone
out of a meeting no home group i have ever attended would allow that to
happen. Your falsehoods do not do you justice. i will pray for you anyway.
I Do honor any person of any religion who honors god and not just
themselves. Unfortunately that does not describe you.

co...@anon.gov wrote in message <683cf3$k0r$3...@gte1.gte.net>...

>"Robert Mark White" <mark...@ou.edu> posted with deletions:
>.....................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Posting from an account where his mother works as a teacher in Oklahoma.
>

>> >This implies Step 2 is an event as well because one can
>> >describe the exact event in an exact moment in time when
>> >one _finds_ something.
>
>> event - hell no, come on man it says something not a event
>> this something could be a process. as it is for most of us.
>

>For the subsequent contradiction that Step 2 is an event, see below.
>

>> well if we can have A contradiction, then Christianity can have as many
as
>> they want ok?
>

>Mark White lives or used to live with or off of Steven N. in Denver.
>
>Mark White is notorious for hating Christianity as much as Steven N.
>
>Mark White is or was a B'Hai, a religion supposed to show tolerance to
>Christianity.
>
>However, some years ago I witnessed at least twice Mark White physically re
move
>(read this as literally throw out) people from meetings who chose to talk
about
>their spiritual progress in Christianity.
>
>Mark White is a physically imposing bully, a religious thug, and a
"recovery
>demon" with his evil cronies who have one thing in common: they all
worship
>"The Traditions of Narcotics Anonymous".
>
>I know for a fact that Mark White has not done Step 2, but may God bless
him
>for doing so.
>

>> Dogma prevents a working relationship cause you think you already know
it
>> all cause you know dogma. God is not about rules or laws. God is about
love
>> and that is very diffacult to write down.
>

>So difficult to write about love, in fact, that the best selling book of
all
>time, The Bible, is all about love. May God bless Mark White for reading
The
>Bible.
>

>> the reason some NA members find christanity so offensive is its dogmatic
and
>> seemingly superior nature. this is what allowed me to suspect your
identity
>> in your postings long before your were outted so to speak.

>....................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Ad hominem; I try to stick to facts.
>
>[ snipped is the long monolog thing about feelings ]
>
>Feelings are completely unreliable and not trustworthy because they are not
>based on facts.
>
>The lesson is that one can make spiritual progress regardless of how one
feels.
>
>I note that nowhere does Mark White speak to the process of making
spiritual
>progress, contained in Steps 10, 11, and 12. Again, that is because Mark
White
>has not done Step 2 and hence has not gotten that far.
>
>Thanks are due to Mark White in this regard. It was his behavior in NA to
me
>which in part first alerted me about what happens when Step 2 is not done,
and
>the integral relationship Step 2 has in preventing relapse in making
possible a
>solid foundation for the remaining steps and one's recovery.
>

>> and yes the second step is a event so to speak, in that it occurs after
the
>> first step and before the third.
>

>When one makes an assertion then contradicts it at the same time, that is
known

>as schizophrenic logic. Previously, Mark White emphatically stated Step 2
is
>not an event but a process, but here he contradicts himself by stating Step
2

Robert Mark White

unread,

Dec 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/27/97

to

oh yes i forgot Colin by the way neither my mother nor my father or any
other relative i am aware of live or work in Oklahoma. another of your
bigoted deriding statements about me that have no basis in reality. If you
have been paying attention you will notice that this is another symptom of
his mental illness.

oh yes in case you had not noticed this thread was on the second step not
10,11, 12 if and when you work the steps preceding this one Colin and work
you way up to 10, 11, 12 i will be glad to discuss them with you as i
understand them.

as for feelings you are right they are somewhat unreliable. but not useless
they are what make us human. when we deny our selves something which in
innate in us we are diminished as of course you are. recovery is about
learning to face your feeling and deal with then not snip them out like some
information we dot want to see or face.

Again i call to your attention his illogical statement that since as he says
I have not worked the second step that proves why addicts relapse in NA. I
celebrated 10 years in recovery the 15th of December. again the lack of
logic thing, see the man needs help. Professional help. he Denies his
feelings and is illogical. need i say more?

co...@anon.gov wrote in message <683cf3$k0r$3...@gte1.gte.net>...
>"Robert Mark White" <mark...@ou.edu> posted with deletions:
>.....................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Posting from an account where his mother works as a teacher in Oklahoma.
>

>> >This implies Step 2 is an event as well because one can
>> >describe the exact event in an exact moment in time when
>> >one _finds_ something.
>
>> event - hell no, come on man it says something not a event
>> this something could be a process. as it is for most of us.
>

>For the subsequent contradiction that Step 2 is an event, see below.
>

>> well if we can have A contradiction, then Christianity can have as many
as
>> they want ok?
>

>Mark White lives or used to live with or off of Steven N. in Denver.
>
>Mark White is notorious for hating Christianity as much as Steven N.
>
>Mark White is or was a B'Hai, a religion supposed to show tolerance to
>Christianity.
>
>However, some years ago I witnessed at least twice Mark White physically
remove
>(read this as literally throw out) people from meetings who chose to talk
about
>their spiritual progress in Christianity.
>
>Mark White is a physically imposing bully, a religious thug, and a
"recovery
>demon" with his evil cronies who have one thing in common: they all
worship
>"The Traditions of Narcotics Anonymous".
>
>I know for a fact that Mark White has not done Step 2, but may God bless
him
>for doing so.
>

>> Dogma prevents a working relationship cause you think you already know
it
>> all cause you know dogma. God is not about rules or laws. God is about
love
>> and that is very diffacult to write down.
>

>So difficult to write about love, in fact, that the best selling book of
all
>time, The Bible, is all about love. May God bless Mark White for reading
The
>Bible.
>

>> the reason some NA members find christanity so offensive is its dogmatic
and
>> seemingly superior nature. this is what allowed me to suspect your
identity
>> in your postings long before your were outted so to speak.

>....................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Ad hominem; I try to stick to facts.
>
>[ snipped is the long monolog thing about feelings ]
>
>Feelings are completely unreliable and not trustworthy because they are not
>based on facts.
>
>The lesson is that one can make spiritual progress regardless of how one
feels.
>
>I note that nowhere does Mark White speak to the process of making
spiritual
>progress, contained in Steps 10, 11, and 12. Again, that is because Mark
White
>has not done Step 2 and hence has not gotten that far.
>
>Thanks are due to Mark White in this regard. It was his behavior in NA to
me
>which in part first alerted me about what happens when Step 2 is not done,
and
>the integral relationship Step 2 has in preventing relapse in making
possible a
>solid foundation for the remaining steps and one's recovery.
>

>> and yes the second step is a event so to speak, in that it occurs after
the
>> first step and before the third.
>

>When one makes an assertion then contradicts it at the same time, that is
known

>as schizophrenic logic. Previously, Mark White emphatically stated Step 2
is
>not an event but a process, but here he contradicts himself by stating Step
2

Robert Mark White

unread,

Dec 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/27/97

to

Dogma prevents a working relationship cause you think you already know it
>> all cause you know dogma. God is not about rules or laws. God is about
love

>> and that is very difficult to write down.

>
>So difficult to write about love, in fact, that the best selling book of
all
>time, The Bible, is all about love. May God bless Mark White for reading
The
>Bible.

well i think you need to check again i recently hear that the bible had been
replaced as the number 1 seller of all time. i could be wrong it would not
be the first time but that is what i heard. oh and the bible is not all
about love. in fact the first five books are call the books of the law by
the Jewish people, as it is there legal system. In fact i am only aware of
a chapter in Corinthians which is the only one called the love chapter. the
rest are not just about love. there is a whole lot else in there maybe you
should read it.
oh and by the way what university did you earn this Ph.D. in and can we call
and verify this fact?

not that i think you are out of touch with reality or anything.