Re: Bahai Qustions [1#]
SLANDER, DECEIVE > Baha'i Censorship
Steven Scholl http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Scholl3.htm
When I received a letter from a Baha'i Continental Counsellor indicating
that I was under threat of being declared a Covenant-breaker, the impact on
me personally was less than on my family. My wife is a Baha'i as are many of
her family members, . . . The very real threat of being declared a Covenant
breaker meant my wife had to face the decision of joining me as a heretic or
divorcing me so that she could maintain her relationships with her family
and other lifelong friends. Since [my wife] had no intention of divorcing
me, the choices then extended out to her family. Her sister would not refuse
to socialize with us so she would automatically be declared a covenant
breaker along with her husband and children. Many of my close Baha'i friends
would also be faced with the decision of maintaining friendships or joining
me as a heretic. The whole thing is absurd and quite medieval. But it does
raise the issue which you point out so well; how anyone would want to belong
to a group which is willing to act this way and be so cruel is beyond me.
That is why I voluntarily left the religion. Not in order to escape
punishment but because the Baha'i community had become such an unhealthy
place spiritually. I was terribly saddened that my spiritual home of 25
years had turned into a prison and nightmare.
Quoted by Karen Bacquet in "Enemies Within: Conflict and Control in the
Baha'i Community" [60] Scholl, Steven. (2000). April 26 post to
tali...@yahoogroups.com.
See Steven Scholl's related comments:
Re: Article in American Family Foundation's Cultic Studies Journal by Karen
Bacquet
More by Steven Scholl:
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Scholl.htm
--
Frederick Glaysher
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/
SLANDER > The Baha'i Way: See The Bahai Technique:
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/technique.htm
"Jeffrey" <con...@truebahai.com> wrote in message
news:iObed.832$9J1....@news.uswest.net...
>I will respond to your question about covenant breakers since I have
> specific personal knowledge about this.
>
> When I discovered the Orthodox Baha'i Faith and realized the truth that
> the
> main (Heteodox) organization had faithlessly turned away from the
> fundamental verities of the Faith by disposing of the essential
> Institutions
> of the Guardianship and the Hands of the Cause, and rejecting and removing
> from the Faith the divinely guided and appointed Second Guardian, I
> attempted to quietly withdraw from that organization. However, after some
> in my community had questioned my withdrawal, I was contacted by and
> refused
> to speak to one of their "Counsellors." Shortly afterward, I was declared
> a
> covenant-breaker. My wife and kids were contacted and told that if they
> did
> not shun me, all of their Baha'i friends would shun them too (and this
> happened).
>
> Jeffrey
> con...@truebahai.com
>
Researcher
Censorship" <SeeCo...@website.com> wrote:
>FYI for those unfamiliar with the fanaticism of the organized Baha'is:
>
>Steven Scholl http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Scholl3.htm
Thank you for the web page reference. I was reading through those
pages yesterday they were very informative.
How do Bahai's respond to situations like the above? Is it mandatory
that they all must agree with this type of behavior?
Thank you for your time
- Res
Finnegan's Wake
"Researcher" <auth@no_email.com> wrote in message
news:madkn0heeoki94fig...@4ax.com...
>
> How do Bahai's respond to situations like the above? Is it mandatory
> that they all must agree with this type of behavior?
Absolutely. The Bahai who fails to obey the injunction regarding contact
with a CB will himself be designated as one, with the consequent penalties.
Covenant breaking is viewed as a disease and a hereditary one at that. The
late Guardian (d 1957) declared almost his entire extended family to be
Covenant Breakers. In the late nineties a bahai in New Zealand was declared
a Covenant Breaker because she refused to cease contact with descendants of
those anathematised.
There is significant anecdotal evidence on the attitude of Bahais to CBs
which amounts to a heightened paranoia. Thus the presence of books by CBs
will prevent a Bahai sleeping and/or generate an especially malodorous
smell. Indeed there is an anecdote which states there is an L-shaped room so
designed that members of the Universal House of Justice can interview
Covenant Breakers without seeing them.
Researcher
wrote:
>Absolutely. The Bahai who fails to obey the injunction regarding contact
>with a CB will himself be designated as one, with the consequent penalties.
Hmm I see.
>Covenant breaking is viewed as a disease and a hereditary one at that.
You must excuse my lack of knowledge here regarding the Bahai faith,
but were you serious in the above statement? Do Bahai's really believe
that Covenant Breaking is hereditary?
>The late Guardian (d 1957) declared almost his entire extended family to be
>Covenant Breakers. In the late nineties a bahai in New Zealand was declared
>a Covenant Breaker because she refused to cease contact with descendants of
>those anathematised.
Okay.
>There is significant anecdotal evidence on the attitude of Bahais to CBs
>which amounts to a heightened paranoia. Thus the presence of books by CBs
>will prevent a Bahai sleeping and/or generate an especially malodorous
>smell. Indeed there is an anecdote which states there is an L-shaped room so
>designed that members of the Universal House of Justice can interview
>Covenant Breakers without seeing them.
Not sure how to discuss the above LOL so I had best remain silent for
now. :-)
SLANDER, DECEIVE > Baha'i Censorship
> Censorship" <SeeCo...@website.com> wrote:
>
>>FYI for those unfamiliar with the fanaticism of the organized Baha'is:
>>
>>Steven Scholl http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Scholl3.htm
>
> Thank you for the web page reference. I was reading through those
> pages yesterday they were very informative.
You're welcome. You well understand, already, I'm sure, that
everyone here on talk.religion.bahai is vying to influence you
along the lines of their point of view, myself included. Ultimately,
as you know, you'll have to make up your own mind on how
to understand the contradictions and oppressions of the Baha'i
Faith. My attempt on my website is to preserve what others
have strained every effort to suppress.... That's my view. I believe
I owe that to my fellow Baha'is who are unaware of all the
tyranny that exists, and to my fellow citizens, rather than leaving
them completely to the malice of calculating predators. Again, my view.
>>More by Steven Scholl:
>>http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Scholl.htm
>
> How do Bahai's respond to situations like the above? Is it mandatory
> that they all must agree with this type of behavior?
>
> Thank you for your time
> - Res
They may not agree, but they dare not, had best not, utter a single
syllable to that effect.... Juan Cole remarks in an excerpt in The Baha'i
Technique: "Silent suffering of tyranny and injustice from one's leaders
is the actual definition of a Baha'i in good standing."
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/technique.htm
THAT's the way it is....
Best,
Finnegan's Wake
> >Covenant breaking is viewed as a disease and a hereditary one at that.
>
> You must excuse my lack of knowledge here regarding the Bahai faith,
> but were you serious in the above statement? Do Bahai's really believe
> that Covenant Breaking is hereditary?
The short answer is "YES!" - the average Joe Bahai belives a CB is evil
incarnate and extends that suspicion to members of the family.
>
> >The late Guardian (d 1957) declared almost his entire extended family to
be
> >Covenant Breakers. In the late nineties a bahai in New Zealand was
declared
> >a Covenant Breaker because she refused to cease contact with descendants
of
> >those anathematised.
>
> Okay.
>
> >There is significant anecdotal evidence on the attitude of Bahais to CBs
> >which amounts to a heightened paranoia. Thus the presence of books by CBs
> >will prevent a Bahai sleeping and/or generate an especially malodorous
> >smell. Indeed there is an anecdote which states there is an L-shaped room
so
> >designed that members of the Universal House of Justice can interview
> >Covenant Breakers without seeing them.
>
> Not sure how to discuss the above LOL so I had best remain silent for
> now. :-)
It is documented. I also have some experience in the field having been
named locally as "the next best thing to a CB" and members of the community
likely to be in contact with me have been advised to have few if any
dealings.
This is one of the nastier sides of Bahaism and one that Bahais are
reluctant to explain. It always seemed strange to me that as Christians
attempt to undo years of strife by discourse among themselves, the Bahais
create discord by anathematising those whose views of the faith fail to
accord with the norm set at Haifa by a body, the legitimacy of which, at the
least, is suspect.
Mr. Bad Judgement
Researcher wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:25:19 +0100, "Finnegan's Wake" <m...@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Absolutely. The Bahai who fails to obey the injunction regarding contact
>>with a CB will himself be designated as one, with the consequent penalties.
>
>
> Hmm I see.
>
>
>>Covenant breaking is viewed as a disease and a hereditary one at that.
>
>
> You must excuse my lack of knowledge here regarding the Bahai faith,
> but were you serious in the above statement? Do Bahai's really believe
> that Covenant Breaking is hereditary?
>
You might do better to ask Baha'is, if you want to know what Baha'is
believe.
It would seem to me that if Covenant Breaking were a hereditary, rather
than environmental condition, than 'Abdu'l Baha would have been a
Covenant Breaker with the overwhelming majority of His family members,
decendents as well as siblings, as Dermod alludes to below.
>
>>The late Guardian (d 1957) declared almost his entire extended family to be
>>Covenant Breakers. In the late nineties a bahai in New Zealand was declared
>>a Covenant Breaker because she refused to cease contact with descendants of
>>those anathematised.
>
>
> Okay.
>
Shoghi Effendi did say that people drew covenant breaker perspectives
from their parents, so, what Dermod suggests is not completely baseless.
The problem is that people make choices. Those children of Covenant
Breaker Baha'is who don't accept Baha'u'llah, but are Christians,
Muslims, or agnostics, are not going to be shunned as Covenant Breakers.
Those children of Covenant Breaker Baha'is who are themselves Baha'is,
need to choose, and if they associate with Covenant Breaker Baha'is, in
time, they will be shunned as Covenant Breaker Baha'is themselves.
>
>>There is significant anecdotal evidence on the attitude of Bahais to CBs
>>which amounts to a heightened paranoia. Thus the presence of books by CBs
>>will prevent a Bahai sleeping and/or generate an especially malodorous
>>smell. Indeed there is an anecdote which states there is an L-shaped room so
>>designed that members of the Universal House of Justice can interview
>>Covenant Breakers without seeing them.
>
On the other hand, we've had folks on this newsgroup posting on behalf
of claiminats to being the second and the third (maybe even the fourth)
various guardians of the Baha'i Faith, and still vanilla Baha'is post
here w/o screaming off in hysteria.
>
> Not sure how to discuss the above LOL so I had best remain silent for
> now. :-)
You're a clever one.
- Mr. Bad
Hess
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:25:19 +0100, "Finnegan's Wake" <m...@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Absolutely. The Bahai who fails to obey the injunction regarding contact
> >with a CB will himself be designated as one, with the consequent
penalties.
>
> Hmm I see.
Res, shunning a covenant breaker is not to punish him, but to protect other
believers and the unity of the community.
It is not a hereditary conclusion, but if one chooses to follow the foot
steps of his/her parent(s) in opposition to the spirit of the faith then
he/she will be a covenant breaker. However, if a remnant of a covenant
breaker comes to the conclusion that his parent(s) were wrong and expresses
his/her disassociation from their doctrine, then he/she would be considered
a believer as any other person. The following articles may help to
understand the position of Bahai community in regards to Covenant Breakers.
http://bahai-library.com/uhj/covenant.breakers.html
http://www.safnet.com/bahai/docs/cb2.html
Best,
Hess
"Finnegan's Wake" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2tvt4mF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Researcher" <auth@no_email.com> wrote in message
> news:sdlkn0l6hk5s13otn...@4ax.com...
> > >Covenant breaking is viewed as a disease and a hereditary one at that.
> >
> > You must excuse my lack of knowledge here regarding the Bahai faith,
> > but were you serious in the above statement? Do Bahai's really believe
> > that Covenant Breaking is hereditary?
>
> The short answer is "YES!" - the average Joe Bahai belives a CB is evil
> incarnate and extends that suspicion to members of the family.
Res, Bahais do not believe in the existence of evil, per se, as this guy
puts, but the absence of good results in evil, as this guy does :-)
this guy once asked to be considered Covenant breaker, apparently he finds a
glory and self importance in the title, sad life.
>
> This is one of the nastier sides of Bahaism and one that Bahais are
> reluctant to explain. It always seemed strange to me that as Christians
> attempt to undo years of strife by discourse among themselves, the Bahais
> create discord by anathematising those whose views of the faith fail to
> accord with the norm set at Haifa by a body, the legitimacy of which, at
the
> least, is suspect.
>
this guy ... fortunately for him, no attention was given to his making noise
about the UHJ not be the legitimate administrative body of the faith, he
went on to refute the legitimacy of the Guardian and even farther to
disrepute AbdulBaha in the hope to acquire the CV title, forgetting that he
never was a Bahai to begin with. Some people have noble goals, some others
have no goals.
best,
The Reform Bahai Faith
>
>
>> Was there any reason ever given as to why the above changes you
>> mentioned occurred?
>
>
>> Were those offices (of position I assume) removed because it was time
>> to remove them or were they meant to exist for a far longer duration?
>
> The Will and Testament of Abdu'l-Baha created the Institution of the
> Guardianship and named Shoghi Effendi as the first Guardian. Shoghi was
> supposed to appoint his successor in his own lifetime (i.e. while he was
> alive and not by a testamentary document). It was to be his first born
> male descendent, but (loosely paraphrasing here) if he was not spiritually
> up to the task, the Guardian is to appoint another "branch" to succeed
> him. The Heterodox Bahais believe that only a descendant of Baha'u'llah
> can be Guardian (and since there was no one who had not been
> ex-communicated, they said Shoghi could not appoint one). The Orthodox
> Baha'is believe that Shoghi was free to appoint any faithful believer and
> that he did by naming Mason Remey as the President of the embryonic
> Universal House of Justice (the Guardian is the sacred head of the UHJ).
> Since only the Guardian can appoint Hands, there is no way for the
> Heterodox to appoint any (I believe all but one of their Hands have died).
> In other words, there is a fundamental disagreement as to succession of
> authority. Regarding the duration of the offices, there is ample
> authority in the Writings that these Institutions are the building blocks
> of the Order of Baha'u'llah, a world civilization destined to bring
> humanity into its long-awaited Golden Age. Thus, these Divine Insitutions
> are to exist for at least 1000 years.
>
--
Res.
Reform Bahais bear no animosity towards either the organized Baha'is of
Haifa nor the Orthodox Baha'is.
Merely as a statement of fact, as we see it, both denominations are wrong
regarding the Covenant, the Will & Testament, and the Guardianship.
Relevant paragraphs, in this context, FROM On Bahai Liberty:
Dying without leaving a will in 1957, Shoghi Effendi left the Baha'i Faith
with no infallible successor, no appointed Guardian, and no infallible
interpreter of Baha'u'llah's Writings. Shoghi Effendi's own words state
emphatically that without a Guardian the Baha'i Faith would be mutilated and
completely deprived of the "unerring guidance of God." Subsequent to his
death, Baha'i experience only corroborates his judgment. No matter to what
extent the Hands of the Cause assumed, or presumed, an authority that
neither Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament nor any of the writings of Shoghi
Effendi bestowed, their innovations and attempts to lay a credible
foundation for the uhj failed, and time has proven it, made it open and
blatant as the noonday sun.
The end of the Guardianship and the innovations and attempts to fill in the
gaps and unfulfilled portions of Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament have
continued unabated since the earliest schism between the Hands of the Cause,
their unilateral and unauthorized attempt to fill the interpretive void left
by Shoghi Effendi's failure to foresee his untimely end and the commotions
it would unleash upon Baha'u'llah's Faith. Neither the custodians nor the
Orthodox Baha'is had, or have, a credible claim to assumption of the mantle
of authority. Nothing in Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament nor Shoghi
Effendi's writings anticipated or justified what they did after the
Guardian's death. Similarly, the International Baha'i Council that the Hands
put aside was not in the Will and Testament nor an instrument of the Master
for the appointment of a new Guardian. That the Hands were nominated and
appointed by Shoghi Effendi gave them no legitimate authority to assume, or
usurp, the "rights and powers in succession to the Guardian," which they
claimed, nor to change the method of creating a universal house of justice
from what was stipulated by the Master in His Will and was already
anticipated by the Guardian through the unfolding of the International
Baha'i Council. Any pretense to "infallibility" ended with Shoghi Effendi,
and subsequent Baha'i experience has proven it in the ruined and destroyed
lives of many thousands of individuals, married couples, families, and
Baha'i communities.
The eventual creation by the uhj of the continental board of counselors, a
type of Baha'i college of cardinals, and the auxiliary boards, notorious for
operating like the Jesuits at their worst, has only exacerbated the
situation and deepened the rift between Baha'is in all walks of life and the
barely concealed clergy that now exists and demands at every turn
"obedience" to the covenant, as the "infallible" universal house of justice
interprets it, ignoring that Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi both explicitly
stated that only the Guardian has interpretive guidance and that the uhj has
only legislative authority.
Respectfully, of other points of view on these matters,
Frederick Glaysher
95 Theses - On Bahai Liberty
The Reform Bahai Faith
www.ReformBahai.org
Paul Hammond
> "Finnegan's Wake" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:2tvt4mF...@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Researcher" <auth@no_email.com> wrote in message
> > news:sdlkn0l6hk5s13otn...@4ax.com...
> > > >Covenant breaking is viewed as a disease and a hereditary one at that.
> > >
> > > You must excuse my lack of knowledge here regarding the Bahai faith,
> > > but were you serious in the above statement? Do Bahai's really believe
> > > that Covenant Breaking is hereditary?
> >
> > The short answer is "YES!" - the average Joe Bahai belives a CB is evil
> > incarnate and extends that suspicion to members of the family.
>
> Res, Bahais do not believe in the existence of evil, per se, as this guy
> puts, but the absence of good results in evil, as this guy does :-)
>
So, Hess - what you're saying is that... Evil doesn't exist... but
that our Dermod is clearly evil?
Have I got that right?
Paul
(PS - what is your response to Shoghi's "evil exists" speech?)
Sufi Baha'i
Faith? Since you are interpreting your 95 theses from Baha'i
doctrine, you are essentially performing the duties of a Guardian.
"The Reform Bahai Faith" <seewe...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<2u1r8uF...@uni-berlin.de>...
Researcher
>
>>Researcher wrote:
>>
>> You must excuse my lack of knowledge here regarding the Bahai faith,
>> but were you serious in the above statement? Do Bahai's really believe
>> that Covenant Breaking is hereditary?
>
>You might do better to ask Baha'is, if you want to know what Baha'is
>believe.
>
>It would seem to me that if Covenant Breaking were a hereditary, rather
>than environmental condition, than 'Abdu'l Baha would have been a
>Covenant Breaker with the overwhelming majority of His family members,
>decendents as well as siblings, as Dermod alludes to below.
That is a good point.
>Shoghi Effendi did say that people drew covenant breaker perspectives
>from their parents, so, what Dermod suggests is not completely baseless.
Social and family influences ... yes I can understand that; though
this is a bit different to heredity where such a thing may be passed
on from generation to generation.
And yes ... I am aware of the research that is examining the
relationships between genetic traits and behavior. :-)
However that research is still in its infancy and about as many cases
against it can be made as there are for it. Time will tell I guess.
>The problem is that people make choices. Those children of Covenant
>Breaker Baha'is who don't accept Baha'u'llah, but are Christians,
>Muslims, or agnostics, are not going to be shunned as Covenant Breakers.
Okay.
>Those children of Covenant Breaker Baha'is who are themselves Baha'is,
>need to choose, and if they associate with Covenant Breaker Baha'is, in
>time, they will be shunned as Covenant Breaker Baha'is themselves.
That is perhaps where outsiders (like myself) would have problems in
understanding it.
It is the age old conflict between religion and family especially so
when the two collide.
Does one still visit and respect their parents or does one give them
up on account that they hold to different views or beliefs. Likewise
for parents if their child becomes a Covenant Breaker do they cut all
ties or continue their parental role?
>On the other hand, we've had folks on this newsgroup posting on behalf
>of claiminats to being the second and the third (maybe even the fourth)
>various guardians of the Baha'i Faith, and still vanilla Baha'is post
>here w/o screaming off in hysteria.
I see.
>- Mr. Bad
-Res
Researcher
wrote:
>>"Researcher" wrote:
>>
>> You must excuse my lack of knowledge here regarding the Bahai faith,
>> but were you serious in the above statement? Do Bahai's really believe
>> that Covenant Breaking is hereditary?
>
>The short answer is "YES!" - the average Joe Bahai belives a CB is evil
>incarnate and extends that suspicion to members of the family.
I personally do not agree with shunning practices (as I have seen it
in quite few countries in my travels along with the results).
However to be fair I have also seen that in some situations it has
worked to keep a group of people or a tribe together which is far less
harsh (and preferable to) some of the 'punishments' I have had the sad
circumstances to see.
Some of the harsher 'punishments' (including death or mutilation) were
at times for what would be considered minor infractions.
I do realize that in the West we take our 'rights' and 'freedoms' for
granted and expect the same sort of rights in the various religious
groups one may be associated to.
Strangely enough shunning is quite prevalent even amongst so-called
mainstream groups whether it is a club; (religious/non-religious) one
of the larger religions or even smaller sub-communities.
Either way it doesn't lessen the pain for those whom have been in the
said group for a long time, also having family and friends involved
makes it all the more difficult.
I finally came to the conclusion that people will be people, some are
silly, greedy, manipulative, afraid, over protective etc ... and being
people stupid decisions can (and are often) easily be made.
This sadly appears to be the case even more so within religious
communities where the idea of keeping the faith 'pure' or free from
'perceived apostasy' exists. Add fear (of change or different ideas)
and personal motives into the equation and almost any action can be
justified.
As to hereditary another gentleman in this thread cleared that issue
up.
-snip-
>It is documented. I also have some experience in the field having been
>named locally as "the next best thing to a CB" and members of the community
>likely to be in contact with me have been advised to have few if any
>dealings.
I see.
>This is one of the nastier sides of Bahaism and one that Bahais are
>reluctant to explain.
Not knowing the Bahai's personally it may well be a crisis of
conscience, sometimes this happens in religious groups, where one
thing is taught that runs contrary to ones own feelings or conscience.
Oddly enough this is often a symptom of a world that is rapidly
changing around the said group along with a decline in membership. Is
the Bahai membership growing or is it staying the same (or even in
decline)?
>It always seemed strange to me that as Christians
>attempt to undo years of strife by discourse among themselves, the Bahais
>create discord by anathematising those whose views of the faith fail to
>accord with the norm set at Haifa by a body, the legitimacy of which, at the
>least, is suspect.
Time does that to most religions. Though within Christianity (mainly
Protestant groups) there also exists various forms of shunning.
Researcher
>
>Res, shunning a covenant breaker is not to punish him, but to protect other
>believers and the unity of the community.
I understand the reasoning behind 'shunning' and it is far preferable
to some of the methods employed in other cultures/countries.
However from what I do know; shunning is not only about 'protecting' a
group but also about punishment (with a view to bring them back into
the fold).
At its most basic level it is very similar to peer pressure which as
we all know is a form of social control.
>It is not a hereditary conclusion, but if one chooses to follow the foot
>steps of his/her parent(s) in opposition to the spirit of the faith then
>he/she will be a covenant breaker. However, if a remnant of a covenant
>breaker comes to the conclusion that his parent(s) were wrong and expresses
>his/her disassociation from their doctrine, then he/she would be considered
>a believer as any other person. The following articles may help to
>understand the position of Bahai community in regards to Covenant Breakers.
>
>http://bahai-library.com/uhj/covenant.breakers.html
>http://www.safnet.com/bahai/docs/cb2.html
Thank you I will check the above out when I finished replying to these
articles.
>Best,
- Res.
Researcher
>>>"Finnegan's Wake" wrote:
>>
>> The short answer is "YES!" - the average Joe Bahai belives a CB is evil
>> incarnate and extends that suspicion to members of the family.
>
>Hess wrote:
>
>Res, Bahais do not believe in the existence of evil, per se, as this guy
>puts, but the absence of good results in evil, as this guy does :-)
Okay.
>this guy once asked to be considered Covenant breaker, apparently he finds a
>glory and self importance in the title, sad life.
Well different people do things for different reasons, perhaps he is
happier in the decision he made.
Either way not personally knowing all the facts (and I really do not
want to know them ... it is not my business) it is hard for one to
assume the motive or reasoning behind ones decisions.
As I mentioned in another reply people are fallible and make mistakes
and do things for a wide variety of reasons (some which are not always
evident) however this equally applies to those whom may be involved in
the decision of 'shunning' a person.
No judgmental decision is free from the human factor and all such
judgments can be open to other unknown motives.
I think the issue (well IMO) was not so much on one person but rather
how being declared a Covenant breaker extends to married couples and
family members; not to forget long time friends.
>this guy ... fortunately for him, no attention was given to his making noise
>about the UHJ not be the legitimate administrative body of the faith, he
>went on to refute the legitimacy of the Guardian and even farther to
>disrepute AbdulBaha in the hope to acquire the CV title, forgetting that he
>never was a Bahai to begin with. Some people have noble goals, some others
>have no goals.
Sorry I wouldn't know that is somewhat outside of my query and
approaching the personal (which I avoid).
>best,
Same to you
- Res.
Researcher
>
>>"Researcher" wrote:
>>
>> Thank you for the web page reference. I was reading through those
>> pages yesterday they were very informative.
>
>You're welcome. You well understand, already, I'm sure, that
>everyone here on talk.religion.bahai is vying to influence you
>along the lines of their point of view, myself included. Ultimately,
>as you know, you'll have to make up your own mind on how
>to understand the contradictions and oppressions of the Baha'i
>Faith. My attempt on my website is to preserve what others
>have strained every effort to suppress.... That's my view. I believe
>I owe that to my fellow Baha'is who are unaware of all the
>tyranny that exists, and to my fellow citizens, rather than leaving
>them completely to the malice of calculating predators. Again, my view.
Not a problem Sir.
Just think of me as a no-body LOL; I really do appreciate the
different views that all of you have taken the time to post.
And in my own limited way (sometimes it is a curse) I can see what
both sides mean along with the reasoning that goes behind it.
>> How do Bahai's respond to situations like the above? Is it mandatory
>> that they all must agree with this type of behavior?
>>
>They may not agree, but they dare not, had best not, utter a single
>syllable to that effect.... Juan Cole remarks in an excerpt in The Baha'i
>Technique: "Silent suffering of tyranny and injustice from one's leaders
>is the actual definition of a Baha'i in good standing."
>http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/technique.htm
>
>THAT's the way it is....
If some may not agree then perhaps therein lies the possibility of a
different understanding in the future.
I guess it really depends on the people themselves, it has been my
observation that change rarely comes from the outside (of a group) but
rather first from within the group.
Outsiders are often easily dismissed as being in 'ignorance' and hence
even if right it would likely not be easily admitted and especially so
for those whom are leaders.
Either way it is a difficult topic to tackle.
>Best,
>
>Frederick Glaysher
>The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
>http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/
Thank you for your time.
- Res.
Finnegan's Wake
"Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:c977f97b.04102...@posting.google.com...
Yup and so has he! Dermod is evil therefore he does not exist! Long live
Tim Finnegan!
Hess
Poodle palu, appears that you confused between "is" and "does". is does
refer to a physical or metaphysical existence, short or log term, while does
is not bounded to independency of a motion, action, behavior which is
vanished by the end of its doing. you can do evil and that doing is not
independent of you yourself, which also may be interpreted as: doing evil
makes you evil, but you cant blame it on that poor biblical angel. However,
your doomhead is very sick, apparently his self-recovery system is out of
order, and needs a lots of professional help. Having in mind what Bahaullah
said "the end is not known ...", a man can come to realization by the last
breath of his life, a sincere one is always accepted regardless of what he
had had don.
> (PS - what is your response to Shoghi's "evil exists" speech?)
actually I am very familiar with Showghi's view on evil, if you posted the
article it would be an interesting subject to be discussed.
Hess
exist but will vanish. Apparently, changing handler had no effect on you,
except that now you duck.
Hess
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 05:20:05 GMT, "Hess" <noe...@people.put> wrote:
>
> >>>"Finnegan's Wake" wrote:
> >>
> >> The short answer is "YES!" - the average Joe Bahai belives a CB is evil
> >> incarnate and extends that suspicion to members of the family.
> >
> >Hess wrote:
> >
> >Res, Bahais do not believe in the existence of evil, per se, as this guy
> >puts, but the absence of good results in evil, as this guy does :-)
>
> Okay.
>
> >this guy once asked to be considered Covenant breaker, apparently he
finds a
> >glory and self importance in the title, sad life.
>
> Well different people do things for different reasons, perhaps he is
> happier in the decision he made.
I am not sure how that would make a person happy, but my point is that one
should not be imposed a point of view, rather do independent investigation
of the truth that I trust to be a long and delicate process which many would
make it easy by relying on the said of those who impose better. At any rate,
I suppose everybody has his own cycle to reach a conclusion or confusion.
>
> Either way not personally knowing all the facts (and I really do not
> want to know them ... it is not my business) it is hard for one to
> assume the motive or reasoning behind ones decisions.
>
> As I mentioned in another reply people are fallible and make mistakes
> and do things for a wide variety of reasons (some which are not always
> evident) however this equally applies to those whom may be involved in
> the decision of 'shunning' a person.
> No judgmental decision is free from the human factor and all such
> judgments can be open to other unknown motives.
I agree with the first part of your assertion, however, the business of
shunning people has not been a decision made by humans, no matter how
unfortunate and painful it had been. Only the central figures of the faith
and the elected bodies had exercised the shunning, after having gone through
extreme efforts to retain the unity. the following article may help in
understanding of the subject.
http://www.northill.demon.co.uk/relstud/history.htm#lead
> I think the issue (well IMO) was not so much on one person but rather
> how being declared a Covenant breaker extends to married couples and
> family members; not to forget long time friends.
Although, maybe altogether no more than a three dozens were announced
covenant breakers, however, this is matter of priorities. Abdulbaha says the
orderly of the world is based on two pillars of reward and punishment. As
strange as it might seem, it is reported that the Guardian was field by
extreme grief and even crying when had to announce the breaking of the
covenant by an individual, on the contrast, would appear only sorrowful for
the passing of a loved one. The extend of the damage a covenant breaker
could inflict on the health of the community is multiplied through friends
and even family members. This is the very unfortunate reality of the
covenant breaking.
> >this guy ... fortunately for him, no attention was given to his making
noise
> >about the UHJ not be the legitimate administrative body of the faith, he
> >went on to refute the legitimacy of the Guardian and even farther to
> >disrepute AbdulBaha in the hope to acquire the CV title, forgetting that
he
> >never was a Bahai to begin with. Some people have noble goals, some
others
> >have no goals.
>
> Sorry I wouldn't know that is somewhat outside of my query and
> approaching the personal (which I avoid).
>
perhaps I was too much into details. No Bahai would be shunned in the
community until and unless he/she raising fierce opposition against the
central figures or the institution on the faith. Otherwise the plurality of
the opinion in the faith is as large as the number of its members, yet
unified in adhering to the central figures and the institution.
Best,
John MacLeod
>
>
> There is significant anecdotal evidence on the attitude of Bahais to CBs
> which amounts to a heightened paranoia. Thus the presence of books by CBs
> will prevent a Bahai sleeping and/or generate an especially malodorous
> smell
The following extract from a discussion on another forum a few years ago
supports your view that such attitudes exist though I would say, in my
experience, it is a small minority who hold these kind of views. I have
removed actual names but the posting was public and is publically archived.
"I was a relatively new Baha'i, and I was told that covernant breakers books
were a no no for reading. So when I went to the library once and found this
dreaded book on the
shelf beside all the beautiful Baha'i books, I took the covernant breakers
book home with me, and put it under my bed in a box.
From the moment I did that, things in my life began getting very bad,I am
not joking, and I became quite ill. Emotionally, spiritually, and
physically. Anyway, (distinguished Baha'i)came to visit my home, and I had
forgotten that I had the book at all, not noticing anything any different
was happening, as this sort of sickness came over me slowly and so for me,
being in the middle of something like this, I was too close to the situation
to notice.
During the evenings talk at a Baha'i Meeting, he spoke of covernant breakers
and it suddenly reminded me of that stupid book I had taken off the shelf,
and hid under my bed. So, I told him how I had gotten rid of this book, and
that I was never going to put it back. I loved the Faith so much you see,
and wanted to protect the community.
He told me to take the book right back to the library, immediately. That it
was important not to stop folks from reading it, but......the Baha'is must
not read it at all. Then he went on to say that the books of covernant
breakers were like a rotten apple, that once it has
been read by a Baha'i, that it can destroy the spiritual life of a
community. That it is like an infection, and that we must protect the
Baha'i community from such disease. He told me to do it as quickly as
possible.
I instantly obeyed and did just that the very next morning, and I must
admit, my illness subsided, and the community became healthy again."
Hess
> >"Hess" wrote:
> >
> >Res, shunning a covenant breaker is not to punish him, but to protect
other
> >believers and the unity of the community.
>
> I understand the reasoning behind 'shunning' and it is far preferable
> to some of the methods employed in other cultures/countries.
Appears similar, but a great deal of difference.
> However from what I do know; shunning is not only about 'protecting' a
> group but also about punishment (with a view to bring them back into
> the fold).
To announce one as covenant breaker far exceeds the death punishment, for
first terminates the life on this earth and the second the life hereafter.
The gravity of covenant breaking is not to be confused with mere punishment,
it is in reality to protect other souls from dying, where death of a soul,
in relative terms, refers to its inexistence in comparison to the existence
of all other souls.
> At its most basic level it is very similar to peer pressure which as
> we all know is a form of social control.
I would like to look at this as education method. Bahaullah, has promised
that His faith will not be subject to schism as religions of the past. He,
considers the opposition as bobbles carried to shore by the ocean wave,
burst in contact, very short lived. At any rate, we all know God is most
merciful.
Researcher
>Res.
>Reform Bahais bear no animosity towards either
>the organized Baha'is of Haifa nor the Orthodox Baha'is.
>Merely as a statement of fact, as we see it, both
>denominations are wrong regarding the Covenant,
>the Will & Testament, and the Guardianship.
Thank you for the information you presented below; I found it very
interesting. It will take me awhile to go through it all carefully.
=======
=======
>Respectfully, of other points of view on these matters,
>Frederick Glaysher
>95 Theses - On Bahai Liberty
>The Reform Bahai Faith
>www.ReformBahai.org
=========
Again thank you for taking the time to present this.
- Res.
Finnegan's Wake
"John MacLeod" <jrma...@consultant.com> wrote in message
news:2u5s9eF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Finnegan's Wake" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:2tutdeF...@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >
> > There is significant anecdotal evidence on the attitude of Bahais to CBs
> > which amounts to a heightened paranoia. Thus the presence of books by
CBs
> > will prevent a Bahai sleeping and/or generate an especially malodorous
> > smell
>
> The following extract from a discussion on another forum a few years ago
> supports your view that such attitudes exist though I would say, in my
> experience, it is a small minority who hold these kind of views. I have
> removed actual names but the posting was public and is publically
archived.
Lovely tale and similar to the accounts in Piff's book.
I'm not so sure that only a small minority is involved. Fairly recently a
friend of mine informed a member of the AO that there was an Orthodox Bahai
cell in Northern Ireland; the recipient of this news went "white" to such an
extent that the informant genuinely thought he was going to have a heart
attack. I also know, from more than one source, that my name was circulated
around the community as a "proto Covenant Breaker" who was to be avoided.
If it is only a small minority it seems to have an influence far beyond its
numbers. Hatred of enemies, real or imaginary, is an adhesive applied to
the Bahai community. Look at Hessy and I rest my case!
Mr. Bad Judgement
Researcher wrote:
>>"The Reform Bahai Faith" wrote:
>
>
>>Res.
>
>
>>Reform Bahais bear no animosity towards either
>>the organized Baha'is of Haifa nor the Orthodox Baha'is.
>
>
>>Merely as a statement of fact, as we see it, both
>>denominations are wrong regarding the Covenant,
>>the Will & Testament, and the Guardianship.
>
>
> Thank you for the information you presented below; I found it very
> interesting. It will take me awhile to go through it all carefully.
>
I can only wonder if you are encouraging him, or encouraging me to
challenge this?
>
>
>>"The Reform Bahai Faith" wrote:
>
>
> Relevant paragraphs, in this context, FROM On Bahai Liberty:
>
> Dying without leaving a will in 1957, Shoghi Effendi left the Baha'i
> Faith with no infallible successor, no appointed Guardian, and no
> infallible interpreter of Baha'u'llah's Writings. Shoghi Effendi's own
This institution of the Guardianship was created by 'Abdu'l Baha to meet
the need of continued leadership of the BF. Back in 1892 CE Baha'u'llah
had passed away, having designated 'Abdu'l Baha as successor, and
'Abdu'l Baha's brother, Muhammad Ali, as successor after 'Abdu'l Baha.
Muhammad Ali became a troublemaker over the next thirty years, and did
not play nicely at all. Had 'Abdu'l Baha not created the Guardianship
and appointed Shoghi Effendi to it, the prior provisions would have
remained in effect and Muhammad Ali would have taken over after 'Abdu'l
Baha. The threat of Muhammad Ali had passed by 1957. Had the Baha'i
Faith needed a Guardian as a Papacy, to provide infallible
interpretation in perpetuity, Baha'u'llah would have not only
established the institution, but done it in a way to guarentee a
successor, w/o a will, perhaps like European monarchs, where the nearest
blood relative is the successor, and sometimes cousins go to war over
rival claims.
> words state emphatically that without a Guardian the Baha'i Faith
> would be mutilated and completely deprived of the "unerring guidance
Not exactly, the terms were "divorced from the institution of the ...".
The surprise event was a widowing, rather than a divorce.
"Divorced from the institution of the Guardianship the World Order of
Bahá'u'lláh would be mutilated and permanently deprived of that
hereditary principle which, as `Abdu'l-Bahá has written, has been
invariably upheld by the Law of God."
http://www.bahai-library.com/study/dob.guide/DOB_P104_P148.htm
Even so, the institution persists, even in occultation.
> of God." Subsequent to his death, Baha'i experience only corroborates
> his judgment. No matter to what extent the Hands of the Cause assumed,
> or presumed, an authority that neither Abdu'l-Baha's Will and
> Testament nor any of the writings of Shoghi Effendi bestowed, their
The W&T required the Hands to assent to the Guardian's nomination of a
successor. They announced to the world that no nomination had been
made. Rather than them trying to do become a corporate guardian, or
appoint a guardian who had not been nominated by Shoghi Effendi, they
let the Baha'i community elect the Universal House of Justice, which
Baha'u'llah had called for, IAW with the terms of the W&T.
> innovations and attempts to lay a credible foundation for the uhj
> failed, and time has proven it, made it open and blatant as the
> noonday sun.
>
> The end of the Guardianship and the innovations and attempts to fill
> in the gaps and unfulfilled portions of Abdu'l-Baha's Will and
The 'gaps' and 'unfulfilled portions' are where nostalgia Ludites wished
there were supplementary clauses to _insure_ the perpetuity of the
Guardians,
> Testament have continued unabated since the earliest schism between
> the Hands of the Cause, their unilateral and unauthorized attempt to
> fill the interpretive void left by Shoghi Effendi's failure to foresee
> his untimely end and the commotions it would unleash upon
> Baha'u'llah's Faith. Neither the custodians nor the Orthodox Baha'is
> had, or have, a credible claim to assumption of the mantle of
It sure is nice to find a middle way, and it is easy to say that the
Remeyites were wrong, as they clearly had no basis for arguing that
Remey was appointed. Instead, their argument simply assumes the
necessity of another Guardian, and then argues that Remey was the best
man for the job. If we _don't_ assume there must be a Guardian, then
'the custodians' did the right thing in rejecting the one that did claim
it. So, between the two, someone was right, and not Fred Glaysher.
> authority. Nothing in Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament nor Shoghi
> Effendi's writings anticipated or justified what they did after the
The covenant of Baha'u'llah included the formation of the Universal
house of Justice. 'Abdu'l Baha described how it was to be done, and the
Hands of the Cause overseed the process, in effect, simply executing
some of the few clauses of the W&T which had not been executed, and
which the Baha'i community dould do something about, despite the
disapproval, 45 years later, of Fred Glaysher.
> Guardian's death. Similarly, the International Baha'i Council that the
> Hands put aside was not in the Will and Testament nor an instrument of
> the Master for the appointment of a new Guardian. That the Hands were
> nominated and appointed by Shoghi Effendi gave them no legitimate
> authority to assume, or usurp, the "rights and powers in succession to
> the Guardian," which they claimed, nor to change the method of
I don't see that the hands to claimed rights and powers in succession to
the Guardian, as you claim! They did not appoint subsequent Hands, nor
nominate a successor Guardian, despite Remey's hopes that they would.
> creating a universal house of justice from what was stipulated by the
> Master in His Will and was already anticipated by the Guardian through
> the unfolding of the International Baha'i Council. Any pretense to
Reality check, the IBC was _appointed_ by Shoghi Effendi and the UHJ was
to be _elected_. Read the "Will and Testament" someday _before_ you
decide what was and what was not stipulated therein.
" And now, concerning the House of Justice which God hath ordained as
the source of all good and freed from all error, it must be elected by
universal suffrage, that is, by the believers."
...
"By this House is meant that Universal House of Justice which is to be
elected from all countries, that is from those parts in the East and
West where the loved ones are to be found, after the manner of the
customary elections in Western countries such as those of England."
http://bahai-library.com/?file=abdulbaha_will_testament.html
> "infallibility" ended with Shoghi Effendi, and subsequent Baha'i
> experience has proven it in the ruined and destroyed lives of many
> thousands of individuals, married couples, families, and Baha'i
> communities.
>
Even though the whole thing may be 'up in smoke' for you, Fred Glaysher,
it still works for some 6 million folks on this cinder we call earth.
That "Will and Testament" which you ought to read some day, says:
"The sacred and youthful branch, the Guardian of the Cause of God, as
well as the Universal House of Justice to be universally elected and
established, are both under the care and protection of the Abh? Beauty,
under the shelter and unerring guidance of the Exalted One (may my life
be offered up for them both). Whatsoever they decide is of God. Whoso
obeyeth him not, neither obeyeth them, hath not obeyed God; whoso
rebelleth against him and against them hath rebelled against God; whoso
opposeth him hath opposed God; whoso contendeth with them hath contended
with God; whoso disputeth with him hath disputed with God; whoso denieth
him hath denied God; whoso disbelieveth in him hath disbelieved in God;
whoso deviateth, separateth himself and turneth aside from him hath in
truth deviated, separated himself and turned aside from God."
So, if the Guardian was infallible, than the Universal House of Justice
is, as well.
>
> The eventual creation by the uhj of the continental board of
> counselors, a type of Baha'i college of cardinals, and the auxiliary
Cardinals are selected from bishops and they from priests, all men
who've made life long careers of their religion. The Baha'i counsellors
serve a few years, and go back to their regular, lay, lives, with the
same kinds of things that the rest of us have.
> boards, notorious for operating like the Jesuits at their worst, has
I detect a gratuitous slam on the Catholics, here. As it happens, a lot
of folks respect the Jesuits for characteristics that I'd like to see
more of in the Administrative Order, but I'm not in charge of these details.
> only exacerbated the situation and deepened the rift between Baha'is
> in all walks of life and the barely concealed clergy that now exists
> and demands at every turn "obedience" to the covenant, as the
> "infallible" universal house of justice interprets it, ignoring that
> Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi both explicitly stated that only the
> Guardian has interpretive guidance and that the uhj has only
> legislative authority.
>
The UHJ is an elected body, and when Baha'u'llah wrote of the Houses of
Justice, He did not mention a need for interpretive guidance in an
institution, at all. My religion is one of practice, far more than
belief. In a religion where a line of text may have 72 valid meanings,
an authoritative interpretation is one with 71 to go.
- Mr. Bad
Researcher
>
>>Researcher wrote:
>
>> interesting. It will take me awhile to go through it all carefully.
>>
>
>I can only wonder if you are encouraging him, or encouraging me to
>challenge this?
Actually neither (well not in that way) I do read and check references
(which takes awhile to get the context etc) for now it would not be
prudent for me to comment on topics I am not familiar with and this is
one of them.
If different people present varying interpretations it makes the
searching part all that longer which ultimately is for the better.
>>>"The Reform Bahai Faith" wrote:
>>
>>
>> Relevant paragraphs, in this context, FROM On Bahai Liberty:
>>
>> Dying without leaving a will in 1957, Shoghi Effendi left the Baha'i
>> Faith with no infallible successor, no appointed Guardian, and no
>> infallible interpreter of Baha'u'llah's Writings. Shoghi Effendi's own
>
>This institution of the Guardianship was created by 'Abdu'l Baha to meet
>the need of continued leadership of the BF. Back in 1892 CE Baha'u'llah
>had passed away, having designated 'Abdu'l Baha as successor, and
>'Abdu'l Baha's brother, Muhammad Ali, as successor after 'Abdu'l Baha.
>
>Muhammad Ali became a troublemaker over the next thirty years, and did
>not play nicely at all. Had 'Abdu'l Baha not created the Guardianship
>and appointed Shoghi Effendi to it, the prior provisions would have
>remained in effect and Muhammad Ali would have taken over after 'Abdu'l
>Baha. The threat of Muhammad Ali had passed by 1957. Had the Baha'i
>Faith needed a Guardian as a Papacy, to provide infallible
>interpretation in perpetuity, Baha'u'llah would have not only
>established the institution, but done it in a way to guarentee a
>successor, w/o a will, perhaps like European monarchs, where the nearest
>blood relative is the successor, and sometimes cousins go to war over
>rival claims.
Good points.
>> words state emphatically that without a Guardian the Baha'i Faith
>> would be mutilated and completely deprived of the "unerring guidance
>
>Not exactly, the terms were "divorced from the institution of the ...".
>The surprise event was a widowing, rather than a divorce.
>
>"Divorced from the institution of the Guardianship the World Order of
>Bahá'u'lláh would be mutilated and permanently deprived of that
>hereditary principle which, as `Abdu'l-Bahá has written, has been
>invariably upheld by the Law of God."
>http://www.bahai-library.com/study/dob.guide/DOB_P104_P148.htm
>
>Even so, the institution persists, even in occultation.
What is meant by occultation within the Bahai understanding?
>> of God." Subsequent to his death, Baha'i experience only corroborates
>> his judgment. No matter to what extent the Hands of the Cause assumed,
>> or presumed, an authority that neither Abdu'l-Baha's Will and
>> Testament nor any of the writings of Shoghi Effendi bestowed, their
>
>The W&T required the Hands to assent to the Guardian's nomination of a
>successor. They announced to the world that no nomination had been
>made. Rather than them trying to do become a corporate guardian, or
>appoint a guardian who had not been nominated by Shoghi Effendi, they
>let the Baha'i community elect the Universal House of Justice, which
>Baha'u'llah had called for, IAW with the terms of the W&T.
Okay.
>> innovations and attempts to lay a credible foundation for the uhj
>> failed, and time has proven it, made it open and blatant as the
>> noonday sun.
>>
>> The end of the Guardianship and the innovations and attempts to fill
>> in the gaps and unfulfilled portions of Abdu'l-Baha's Will and
>
>The 'gaps' and 'unfulfilled portions' are where nostalgia Ludites wished
>there were supplementary clauses to _insure_ the perpetuity of the
>Guardians,
I see.
>> Testament have continued unabated since the earliest schism between
>> the Hands of the Cause, their unilateral and unauthorized attempt to
>> fill the interpretive void left by Shoghi Effendi's failure to foresee
>> his untimely end and the commotions it would unleash upon
>> Baha'u'llah's Faith. Neither the custodians nor the Orthodox Baha'is
>> had, or have, a credible claim to assumption of the mantle of
>
>It sure is nice to find a middle way, and it is easy to say that the
>Remeyites were wrong, as they clearly had no basis for arguing that
>Remey was appointed. Instead, their argument simply assumes the
>necessity of another Guardian, and then argues that Remey was the best
>man for the job. If we _don't_ assume there must be a Guardian, then
>'the custodians' did the right thing in rejecting the one that did claim
>it. So, between the two, someone was right, and not Fred Glaysher.
So this difference mainly hinges on the belief (or assumption) that
the Guardians are meant to continue on.
>> authority. Nothing in Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament nor Shoghi
>> Effendi's writings anticipated or justified what they did after the
>
>The covenant of Baha'u'llah included the formation of the Universal
>house of Justice. 'Abdu'l Baha described how it was to be done, and the
>Hands of the Cause overseed the process, in effect, simply executing
>some of the few clauses of the W&T which had not been executed, and
>which the Baha'i community dould do something about, despite the
>disapproval, 45 years later, of Fred Glaysher.
Okay.
>> Guardian's death. Similarly, the International Baha'i Council that the
>> Hands put aside was not in the Will and Testament nor an instrument of
>> the Master for the appointment of a new Guardian. That the Hands were
>> nominated and appointed by Shoghi Effendi gave them no legitimate
>> authority to assume, or usurp, the "rights and powers in succession to
>> the Guardian," which they claimed, nor to change the method of
>
>I don't see that the hands to claimed rights and powers in succession to
>the Guardian, as you claim! They did not appoint subsequent Hands, nor
>nominate a successor Guardian, despite Remey's hopes that they would.
Were these 'hands' in complete agreement?
>> creating a universal house of justice from what was stipulated by the
>> Master in His Will and was already anticipated by the Guardian through
>> the unfolding of the International Baha'i Council. Any pretense to
>
>Reality check, the IBC was _appointed_ by Shoghi Effendi and the UHJ was
>to be _elected_. Read the "Will and Testament" someday _before_ you
>decide what was and what was not stipulated therein.
>
>" And now, concerning the House of Justice which God hath ordained as
>the source of all good and freed from all error, it must be elected by
>universal suffrage, that is, by the believers."
>...
>"By this House is meant that Universal House of Justice which is to be
>elected from all countries, that is from those parts in the East and
>West where the loved ones are to be found, after the manner of the
>customary elections in Western countries such as those of England."
>http://bahai-library.com/?file=abdulbaha_will_testament.html
The elections you mentioned, how are they performed? Does every Bahai
have an equal vote or does a special council exist which votes?
>> "infallibility" ended with Shoghi Effendi, and subsequent Baha'i
>> experience has proven it in the ruined and destroyed lives of many
>> thousands of individuals, married couples, families, and Baha'i
>> communities.
>>
>
>Even though the whole thing may be 'up in smoke' for you, Fred Glaysher,
>it still works for some 6 million folks on this cinder we call earth.
>That "Will and Testament" which you ought to read some day, says:
>
>"The sacred and youthful branch, the Guardian of the Cause of God, as
>well as the Universal House of Justice to be universally elected and
>established, are both under the care and protection of the Abh? Beauty,
>under the shelter and unerring guidance of the Exalted One (may my life
>be offered up for them both). Whatsoever they decide is of God. Whoso
>obeyeth him not, neither obeyeth them, hath not obeyed God; whoso
>rebelleth against him and against them hath rebelled against God; whoso
>opposeth him hath opposed God; whoso contendeth with them hath contended
>with God; whoso disputeth with him hath disputed with God; whoso denieth
>him hath denied God; whoso disbelieveth in him hath disbelieved in God;
>whoso deviateth, separateth himself and turneth aside from him hath in
>truth deviated, separated himself and turned aside from God."
>
>So, if the Guardian was infallible, than the Universal House of Justice
>is, as well.
Is there a place within the Bahai writings where the Universal House
of Justice is actually mentioned as being infallible? If so where?
If not; is the idea of infallibility based upon (or an extension of)
the idea that: because the Guardians were infallible so to must the
Universal House of Justice infallible?
>> The eventual creation by the uhj of the continental board of
>> counselors, a type of Baha'i college of cardinals, and the auxiliary
>
>Cardinals are selected from bishops and they from priests, all men
>who've made life long careers of their religion. The Baha'i counsellors
>serve a few years, and go back to their regular, lay, lives, with the
>same kinds of things that the rest of us have.
Okay.
>> boards, notorious for operating like the Jesuits at their worst, has
>
>I detect a gratuitous slam on the Catholics, here. As it happens, a lot
>of folks respect the Jesuits for characteristics that I'd like to see
>more of in the Administrative Order, but I'm not in charge of these details.
Perhaps he is talking about 'some' of the Jesuit conduct in times
past. Personally I remember fondly some of the theological discussions
I have had with Jesuit friends.
>> only exacerbated the situation and deepened the rift between Baha'is
>> in all walks of life and the barely concealed clergy that now exists
>> and demands at every turn "obedience" to the covenant, as the
>> "infallible" universal house of justice interprets it, ignoring that
>> Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi both explicitly stated that only the
>> Guardian has interpretive guidance and that the uhj has only
>> legislative authority.
>>
>
>The UHJ is an elected body, and when Baha'u'llah wrote of the Houses of
>Justice, He did not mention a need for interpretive guidance in an
>institution, at all. My religion is one of practice, far more than
>belief. In a religion where a line of text may have 72 valid meanings,
>an authoritative interpretation is one with 71 to go.
Okay.
>- Mr. Bad
Thank you for your time
- Res.
Paul Hammond
> >"Mr. Bad Judgement" wrote:
> >
> >>Researcher wrote:
>
>
> >> words state emphatically that without a Guardian the Baha'i Faith
> >> would be mutilated and completely deprived of the "unerring guidance
> >
> >Not exactly, the terms were "divorced from the institution of the ...".
> >The surprise event was a widowing, rather than a divorce.
> >
> >"Divorced from the institution of the Guardianship the World Order of
> >Bahá'u'lláh would be mutilated and permanently deprived of that
> >hereditary principle which, as `Abdu'l-Bahá has written, has been
> >invariably upheld by the Law of God."
> >http://www.bahai-library.com/study/dob.guide/DOB_P104_P148.htm
> >
> >Even so, the institution persists, even in occultation.
>
> What is meant by occultation within the Bahai understanding?
>
I think it is Pat's way of referencing to the idea that is
sometimes expressed that the already existing writings and
interpretations of Shoghi Effendi contain the only
authorised interpretations the Baha'i Faith can hope for,
now that the line of living Guardians has ceased.
It is something of an analogy with the Shi'i Islamic
concept of the occultation of the Twelfth Imam. The
12th Imam is surely did by now, but Twelver Shi'i theology
insists that he merely remains in hiding ready, like
King Arthur, to emerge at some future moment of great
need.
>
> >> Testament have continued unabated since the earliest schism between
> >> the Hands of the Cause, their unilateral and unauthorized attempt to
> >> fill the interpretive void left by Shoghi Effendi's failure to foresee
> >> his untimely end and the commotions it would unleash upon
> >> Baha'u'llah's Faith. Neither the custodians nor the Orthodox Baha'is
> >> had, or have, a credible claim to assumption of the mantle of
> >
> >It sure is nice to find a middle way, and it is easy to say that the
> >Remeyites were wrong, as they clearly had no basis for arguing that
> >Remey was appointed. Instead, their argument simply assumes the
> >necessity of another Guardian, and then argues that Remey was the best
> >man for the job. If we _don't_ assume there must be a Guardian, then
> >'the custodians' did the right thing in rejecting the one that did claim
> >it. So, between the two, someone was right, and not Fred Glaysher.
>
> So this difference mainly hinges on the belief (or assumption) that
> the Guardians are meant to continue on.
>
Yes. And the fact that the majority body believes that Mason
Remey's claims to successorship were untrue.
> >> Guardian's death. Similarly, the International Baha'i Council that the
> >> Hands put aside was not in the Will and Testament nor an instrument of
> >> the Master for the appointment of a new Guardian. That the Hands were
> >> nominated and appointed by Shoghi Effendi gave them no legitimate
> >> authority to assume, or usurp, the "rights and powers in succession to
> >> the Guardian," which they claimed, nor to change the method of
> >
> >I don't see that the hands to claimed rights and powers in succession to
> >the Guardian, as you claim! They did not appoint subsequent Hands, nor
> >nominate a successor Guardian, despite Remey's hopes that they would.
>
> Were these 'hands' in complete agreement?
>
Yes, apart from Mason Remey himself. Remey originally signed a
statement that all the Hands issued, to the effect that since
Shoghi had appointed no successor, and left no will, no
new Guardian could be appointed.
A couple of years later, Remey claimed the position for
himself, and repudiated his earlier agreement with the
other hands, saying that he had been put under pressure
to sign when he didn't really believe what he signed.
> >> creating a universal house of justice from what was stipulated by the
> >> Master in His Will and was already anticipated by the Guardian through
> >> the unfolding of the International Baha'i Council. Any pretense to
> >
> >Reality check, the IBC was _appointed_ by Shoghi Effendi and the UHJ was
> >to be _elected_. Read the "Will and Testament" someday _before_ you
> >decide what was and what was not stipulated therein.
> >
> >" And now, concerning the House of Justice which God hath ordained as
> >the source of all good and freed from all error, it must be elected by
> >universal suffrage, that is, by the believers."
> >...
> >"By this House is meant that Universal House of Justice which is to be
> >elected from all countries, that is from those parts in the East and
> >West where the loved ones are to be found, after the manner of the
> >customary elections in Western countries such as those of England."
> >http://bahai-library.com/?file=abdulbaha_will_testament.html
>
> The elections you mentioned, how are they performed? Does every Bahai
> have an equal vote or does a special council exist which votes?
>
AIUI, the UHJ is elected indirectly, every five years. Baha'is
from each locality elect delegates each year, who then meet to
elect each country's National Spiritual Assembly.
I am hazy on the details, but I imagine that the election of the
UHJ follows a similar pattern - the National convocations would
elect delegates who elect the UHJ.
The details of Baha'i elections usually mean that all the
current members of the UHJ are re-elected, unless they resign.
> >> "infallibility" ended with Shoghi Effendi, and subsequent Baha'i
> >> experience has proven it in the ruined and destroyed lives of many
> >> thousands of individuals, married couples, families, and Baha'i
> >> communities.
> >>
> >
> >Even though the whole thing may be 'up in smoke' for you, Fred Glaysher,
> >it still works for some 6 million folks on this cinder we call earth.
> >That "Will and Testament" which you ought to read some day, says:
> >
> >"The sacred and youthful branch, the Guardian of the Cause of God, as
> >well as the Universal House of Justice to be universally elected and
> >established, are both under the care and protection of the Abh? Beauty,
> >under the shelter and unerring guidance of the Exalted One (may my life
> >be offered up for them both). Whatsoever they decide is of God. Whoso
> >obeyeth him not, neither obeyeth them, hath not obeyed God; whoso
> >rebelleth against him and against them hath rebelled against God; whoso
> >opposeth him hath opposed God; whoso contendeth with them hath contended
> >with God; whoso disputeth with him hath disputed with God; whoso denieth
> >him hath denied God; whoso disbelieveth in him hath disbelieved in God;
> >whoso deviateth, separateth himself and turneth aside from him hath in
> >truth deviated, separated himself and turned aside from God."
> >
> >So, if the Guardian was infallible, than the Universal House of Justice
> >is, as well.
>
> Is there a place within the Bahai writings where the Universal House
> of Justice is actually mentioned as being infallible? If so where?
>
This is it - in the Will and Testament of Abdu'l Baha, the same
document that created the Guardianship.
Elsewhere in this newsgroup, Dermod is discussing the possibility
raised by one Ruth White (in the 1920s or 30s?) that this document
is a forgery.
> If not; is the idea of infallibility based upon (or an extension of)
> the idea that: because the Guardians were infallible so to must the
> Universal House of Justice infallible?
>
The idea stems from the quotation of the W&T of Abdu'l Baha
that Pat just quoted to you. The "infallibilities" of the
Guardian and the UHJ were meant to apply to different
areas - the Guardian in interpretation, the UHJ in
law-making.
>
> Thank you for your time
>
Your questions appear to be eliciting sensible discussion.
Thank you for that!
Paul
Mr. Bad Judgement
Researcher wrote:
>>"Mr. Bad Judgement" wrote:
>>
>>
(snip)
>
>>>words state emphatically that without a Guardian the Baha'i Faith
>>>would be mutilated and completely deprived of the "unerring guidance
>>
>>Not exactly, the terms were "divorced from the institution of the ...".
>>The surprise event was a widowing, rather than a divorce.
>>
>>"Divorced from the institution of the Guardianship the World Order of
>>Bahá'u'lláh would be mutilated and permanently deprived of that
>>hereditary principle which, as `Abdu'l-Bahá has written, has been
>>invariably upheld by the Law of God."
>>http://www.bahai-library.com/study/dob.guide/DOB_P104_P148.htm
>>
>>Even so, the institution persists, even in occultation.
>
>
> What is meant by occultation within the Bahai understanding?
>
Paul has the background material. For some 200 odd years a series of 11
Imams lead the Shiah community; some of them were martyred as enemies of
the Kalif. With the 12th, a child, possibly kidnapped, the line came to
an end. The Ithna Ashariyah, aka the Twelvers, believed the Imam had
disappeared, was still living over a thousand years, and would reappear
in the fullness of time. This disappearance is the occultation.
The Baha'is would be unlikely to describe the situation w/ the Guardian
as "an occultation". Such a description would imply an element of
superstition which good Baha'is ought to avoid.
>
>>> (snip)
>
>
>>>Testament have continued unabated since the earliest schism between
>>>the Hands of the Cause, their unilateral and unauthorized attempt to
>>>fill the interpretive void left by Shoghi Effendi's failure to foresee
>>>his untimely end and the commotions it would unleash upon
>>>Baha'u'llah's Faith. Neither the custodians nor the Orthodox Baha'is
>>>had, or have, a credible claim to assumption of the mantle of
>>
>>It sure is nice to find a middle way, and it is easy to say that the
>>Remeyites were wrong, as they clearly had no basis for arguing that
>>Remey was appointed. Instead, their argument simply assumes the
>>necessity of another Guardian, and then argues that Remey was the best
>>man for the job. If we _don't_ assume there must be a Guardian, then
>>'the custodians' did the right thing in rejecting the one that did claim
>>it. So, between the two, someone was right, and not Fred Glaysher.
>
>
> So this difference mainly hinges on the belief (or assumption) that
> the Guardians are meant to continue on.
>
I think we Baha'is have had an attachment to our expectation of a
perpetuity of Guardians, and I think this attachment has been bad for
us. Certainly, the statements of Shoghi Effendi, whom we don't consider
to be a prophet of either sort, suggest a continuity. However, the text
of the "Will and Testament" does not guarantee a successor; for example,
if the Guardian went on a family vacation with his son (and designated
successor), they might both die in a plane crash, a boating accident,
etc. and the "Will and Testament" has no mechanism for identifying a
successor in these possible scenarios, BUT it does emphasize the
importance of not having a power struggle in such a case.
When Shoghi Effendi passed away w/o a clear successor Guardian, despite
our shortcomings as a community, the Baha'is were largely united; Mason
Remey's eventual counter-claim being the only defection from the larger
community.
>
>>>authority. Nothing in Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament nor Shoghi
>>>Effendi's writings anticipated or justified what they did after the
>>
>>The covenant of Baha'u'llah included the formation of the Universal
>>house of Justice. 'Abdu'l Baha described how it was to be done, and the
>>Hands of the Cause overseed the process, in effect, simply executing
>>some of the few clauses of the W&T which had not been executed, and
>>which the Baha'i community dould do something about, despite the
>>disapproval, 45 years later, of Fred Glaysher.
>
>
> Okay.
>
>
>>>Guardian's death. Similarly, the International Baha'i Council that the
>>>Hands put aside was not in the Will and Testament nor an instrument of
>>>the Master for the appointment of a new Guardian. That the Hands were
>>>nominated and appointed by Shoghi Effendi gave them no legitimate
>>>authority to assume, or usurp, the "rights and powers in succession to
>>>the Guardian," which they claimed, nor to change the method of
>>
>>I don't see that the hands to claimed rights and powers in succession to
>>the Guardian, as you claim! They did not appoint subsequent Hands, nor
>>nominate a successor Guardian, despite Remey's hopes that they would.
>
>
> Were these 'hands' in complete agreement?
>
Again, Paul has anwered correctly. The Hands issued a statement after
the death of Shoghi Effendi. Per the "Will and Testament" it was their
job to assent to Shoghi Effendi's nominated successor, so the Baha'i
community expected them to announce this. Instead, despite every effort
to find some nomination, even to include a search for a will, despite
clear instruction that the nomination was not to be made via a will,
they (to include Charles Mason Remey), announced that the Guardian had
died w/o a successor. Three years later Mason Remey changed his mind
and decided that Shoghi Effendi had nominated him obscurely, and
demanded that the Baha'i community recognize him as such. He did draw
off a few Baha'is who subsequently abandoned him as they further split
into subfactions.
>
>>>creating a universal house of justice from what was stipulated by the
>>>Master in His Will and was already anticipated by the Guardian through
>>>the unfolding of the International Baha'i Council. Any pretense to
>>
>>Reality check, the IBC was _appointed_ by Shoghi Effendi and the UHJ was
>>to be _elected_. Read the "Will and Testament" someday _before_ you
>>decide what was and what was not stipulated therein.
>>
>>" And now, concerning the House of Justice which God hath ordained as
>>the source of all good and freed from all error, it must be elected by
>>universal suffrage, that is, by the believers."
>>...
>>"By this House is meant that Universal House of Justice which is to be
>>elected from all countries, that is from those parts in the East and
>>West where the loved ones are to be found, after the manner of the
>>customary elections in Western countries such as those of England."
>>http://bahai-library.com/?file=abdulbaha_will_testament.html
>
>
> The elections you mentioned, how are they performed?
The "Will and Testament" reads,
"By this House is meant the Universal House of Justice, that is, in all
countries a secondary House of Justice must be instituted, and these
secondary Houses of Justice must elect the members of the Universal one."
At the time of the Guardian, the countries with Baha'i national
communities, had National Spiritual Assemblies, and these NSAs elect the
Universal House of Justice every five years.
> Does every Bahai
> have an equal vote or does a special council exist which votes?
>
It would be the National Spiritual Assemblies. I think there are over
200 of them, to include one for the contiguous USA, one for Alaska, one
for Hawaii, etc.
>
>>>"infallibility" ended with Shoghi Effendi, and subsequent Baha'i
>>>experience has proven it in the ruined and destroyed lives of many
>>>thousands of individuals, married couples, families, and Baha'i
>>>communities.
>>>
>>
>>Even though the whole thing may be 'up in smoke' for you, Fred Glaysher,
>>it still works for some 6 million folks on this cinder we call earth.
>>That "Will and Testament" which you ought to read some day, says:
>>
>>"The sacred and youthful branch, the Guardian of the Cause of God, as
>>well as the Universal House of Justice to be universally elected and
>>established, are both under the care and protection of the Abh? Beauty,
>>under the shelter and unerring guidance of the Exalted One (may my life
>>be offered up for them both). Whatsoever they decide is of God. Whoso
>>obeyeth him not, neither obeyeth them, hath not obeyed God; whoso
>>rebelleth against him and against them hath rebelled against God; whoso
>>opposeth him hath opposed God; whoso contendeth with them hath contended
>>with God; whoso disputeth with him hath disputed with God; whoso denieth
>>him hath denied God; whoso disbelieveth in him hath disbelieved in God;
>>whoso deviateth, separateth himself and turneth aside from him hath in
>>truth deviated, separated himself and turned aside from God."
>>
>>So, if the Guardian was infallible, than the Universal House of Justice
>>is, as well.
>
>
> Is there a place within the Bahai writings where the Universal House
> of Justice is actually mentioned as being infallible? If so where?
>
There are two kinds of infallibility. In one, when God calls the
darkness light, well, then it _is_ light, because God said so. They
don't have this kind of infallibility. The other kind of infallibility
is a moral infallibility. If the morally infallible were to say I
should defend my country with my life, then that is the right thing for
me to do, in the eyes of God and if the morally infallible were to say
that my country was being liberated from a despotic tyrant, and I should
not resist, then, that is the right thing for me to do in the eyes of
God. No water gets turned to wine with moral infallibility.
In the tablet of Baha'u'llah entitled "Bisharat" (Glad Tidings) we read:
"Inasmuch as for each day there is a new problem and for every problem
an expedient solution, such affairs should be referred to the Ministers
of the House of Justice that they may act according to the needs and
requirements of the time. They that, for the sake of God, arise to serve
His Cause, are the recipients of divine inspiration from the unseen
Kingdom. It is incumbent upon all to be obedient unto them."
http://www.bahai-library.com/writings/bahaullah/tb/2.html
In "Ishraqat" (Splendors), we read:
"Inasmuch as for each day there is a new problem and for every problem
an expedient solution, such affairs should be referred to the House of
Justice that the members thereof may act according to the needs and
requirements of the time. They that, for the sake of God, arise to serve
His Cause, are the recipients of divine inspiration from the unseen
Kingdom. It is incumbent upon all to be obedient unto them."
http://www.bahai-library.com/writings/bahaullah/tb/7.html
> If not; is the idea of infallibility based upon (or an extension of)
> the idea that: because the Guardians were infallible so to must the
> Universal House of Justice infallible?
>
That is not why I see the House as infallible. Baha'u'llah chartered
the House of Justice, Himself. It is the enduring institution of His
dispensation. Hands, Counsellors, Guardians, etc. will have come and
gone while the House persists.
>
>>>The eventual creation by the uhj of the continental board of
>>>counselors, a type of Baha'i college of cardinals, and the auxiliary
>>
>>Cardinals are selected from bishops and they from priests, all men
>>who've made life long careers of their religion. The Baha'i counsellors
>>serve a few years, and go back to their regular, lay, lives, with the
>>same kinds of things that the rest of us have.
>
>
> Okay.
>
>
>>>boards, notorious for operating like the Jesuits at their worst, has
>>
>>I detect a gratuitous slam on the Catholics, here. As it happens, a lot
>>of folks respect the Jesuits for characteristics that I'd like to see
>>more of in the Administrative Order, but I'm not in charge of these details.
>
>
> Perhaps he is talking about 'some' of the Jesuit conduct in times
> past. Personally I remember fondly some of the theological discussions
> I have had with Jesuit friends.
>
You are doubly generous. Yes, the Jesuits are admired for certain
intellectual disciplines. When I was a high school debater we looked
forward to our debates with a Jesuit high school because they rightly
prided themselves on this. Fred, on the other hand, was not
complimenting the Jesuits.
>
(snip)
>
>
> Okay.
>
>
>>- Mr. Bad
>
>
> Thank you for your time
>
I think it was Paul who pointed out how you've improved the place. I
hope you are being entertained. I am looking forward to question #2 all
ready.
- Mr. Bad
John MacLeod
"Mr. Bad Judgement" <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:2u8hksF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
>
> The Baha'i counsellors
> serve a few years, and go back to their regular, lay, lives, with the
> same kinds of things that the rest of us have.
>
I'm not sure I quite agree with this. For a start, I think some Baha'i
counsellors continue with their lay lives (business, profession, whatever,
even while they are counsellors). More importantly, while the business of
'serve a few years' is the theory, in practice I think its rare. They are
appointed for a few years but it seems to me most get reappointed and those
who don't its generally because they are moving to a different branch.
I believe a common pattern is for people who once get involved in Baha'i
administration at a higher level (probably starting at about the ABM or
Regional Council level) tend to remain involved pretty seriously for the
rest of their active lives and sometimes well past the point at which they
are still fit and healthy. If they get to the point where they are paid
they may well remain paid all their lives.
Whether this is a reflection of our electoral system, or a result of the
Faith collectively being conservative and afraid of the new, or just the
natural consequence of capable, experienced administrators being in high
demand or a mix of these and other factors I don't know. I also think its
perfectly all right - I can see nothing in Baha'u'llah's Writings which
suggests people shouldn't make a career out of religious administration.
I believe the difference between Baha'i appointments and those in the
Catholic Church and some other religions as twofold.
(1) The Baha'i is appointed to a job, the Catholic to a status. A Catholic
priest is a priest to his dying day (unless he gets convicted of heresy or
something on that scale). Even if he actually is fully retired he is still a
priest. The Baha'i has no status or role except those in the job
description s/he is currently doing.
(2) There are certain ceremonies or rituals or whatever in the Catholic
Faith which are not considered spiritually valid unless a priest in
involved. Baptism, confession, etc. While there are certain administrative
and arguably spiritual functions which only a Baha'i institution can do
(e.g. register someone as a Baha'i) there is no event which requires the
presence of a particularly qualified individual such as a Counsellor.
Researcher
wrote:
(-Some snips made-)
>>Researcher wrote:
>>
>> What is meant by occultation within the Bahai understanding?
>
>I think it is Pat's way of referencing to the idea that is
>sometimes expressed that the already existing writings and
>interpretations of Shoghi Effendi contain the only
>authorised interpretations the Baha'i Faith can hope for,
>now that the line of living Guardians has ceased.
>
>It is something of an analogy with the Shi'i Islamic
>concept of the occultation of the Twelfth Imam. The
>12th Imam is surely did by now, but Twelver Shi'i theology
>insists that he merely remains in hiding ready, like
>King Arthur, to emerge at some future moment of great
>need.
Now I get it. The term confused me at first ... thank you for clearing
that up.
>> So this difference mainly hinges on the belief (or assumption) that
>> the Guardians are meant to continue on.
>
>Yes. And the fact that the majority body believes that Mason
>Remey's claims to successorship were untrue.
Okay. I guess the main point (or key if you will) is that the Majority
agreed in the first place and if the Bahai's vote in a democratic way
(which so far from what I have read appears to be the case) then it is
clearly a system of majority rule.
Perhaps we may differ slightly on this but it has been my (limited)
experience that when *all* people agree in *all* things 100% of the
time ... it is then when I begin to worry about the said religion or
group.
>> Were these 'hands' in complete agreement?
>
>Yes, apart from Mason Remey himself. Remey originally signed a
>statement that all the Hands issued, to the effect that since
>Shoghi had appointed no successor, and left no will, no
>new Guardian could be appointed.
>
>A couple of years later, Remey claimed the position for
>himself, and repudiated his earlier agreement with the
>other hands, saying that he had been put under pressure
>to sign when he didn't really believe what he signed.
Fair enough.
The thing I do not understand is that if Remey did originally sign why
did he sign?
By this I mean if one disagrees with something then signing a document
to show approval for something that one does not accept (despite
threats or coercion) is dishonest and seriously questions ones motives
and conscience.
I do not know all the facts, but I do know that I have been in similar
situations where an agreement with people would have paved a far
easier road (for all sides) yet to agree with something one cannot
accept would undermine all (past, present and future) undertakings and
cast a shadow over everything said.
>> The elections you mentioned, how are they performed? Does every Bahai
>> have an equal vote or does a special council exist which votes?
>
>AIUI, the UHJ is elected indirectly, every five years. Baha'is
>from each locality elect delegates each year, who then meet to
>elect each country's National Spiritual Assembly.
>
>I am hazy on the details, but I imagine that the election of the
>UHJ follows a similar pattern - the National convocations would
>elect delegates who elect the UHJ.
>
>The details of Baha'i elections usually mean that all the
>current members of the UHJ are re-elected, unless they resign.
I thought it might be something along those lines; good. :-)
>> Is there a place within the Bahai writings where the Universal House
>> of Justice is actually mentioned as being infallible? If so where?
>
>This is it - in the Will and Testament of Abdu'l Baha, the same
>document that created the Guardianship.
>
>Elsewhere in this newsgroup, Dermod is discussing the possibility
>raised by one Ruth White (in the 1920s or 30s?) that this document
>is a forgery.
Okay.
>> If not; is the idea of infallibility based upon (or an extension of)
>> the idea that: because the Guardians were infallible so to must the
>> Universal House of Justice infallible?
>
>The idea stems from the quotation of the W&T of Abdu'l Baha
>that Pat just quoted to you. The "infallibilities" of the
>Guardian and the UHJ were meant to apply to different
>areas - the Guardian in interpretation, the UHJ in
>law-making.
Right now I get it.
>Your questions appear to be eliciting sensible discussion.
>Thank you for that!
Not a problem Sir.
I count myself fortunate to have considerate (and thinking) people on
all sides of this discussion who have taken the time to explain their
differences and the reasons behind those differences.
>Paul
Best Wishes
- Res.
Researcher
>
>I'm not sure I quite agree with this. For a start, I think some Baha'i
>counsellors continue with their lay lives (business, profession, whatever,
>even while they are counsellors). More importantly, while the business of
>'serve a few years' is the theory, in practice I think its rare. They are
>appointed for a few years but it seems to me most get reappointed and those
>who don't its generally because they are moving to a different branch.
>
>I believe a common pattern is for people who once get involved in Baha'i
>administration at a higher level (probably starting at about the ABM or
>Regional Council level) tend to remain involved pretty seriously for the
>rest of their active lives and sometimes well past the point at which they
>are still fit and healthy. If they get to the point where they are paid
>they may well remain paid all their lives.
That appears to be fairly common in most faiths that have some form of
hierarchial structure.
Some are just good at what they do (I assume it is the same for the
Bahai faith); while others may feel 'called' to where they are.
>Whether this is a reflection of our electoral system, or a result of the
>Faith collectively being conservative and afraid of the new, or just the
>natural consequence of capable, experienced administrators being in high
>demand or a mix of these and other factors I don't know. I also think its
>perfectly all right - I can see nothing in Baha'u'llah's Writings which
>suggests people shouldn't make a career out of religious administration.
Interesting.
>I believe the difference between Baha'i appointments and those in the
>Catholic Church and some other religions as twofold.
>(1) The Baha'i is appointed to a job, the Catholic to a status.
Well yes and no; it depends on how you understand (and interpret) the
words 'status' and 'job'.
Status can be generally broken down into two forms; i.e.
1. The status conferred by the non-preiest (the general congregation)
upon the person.
2. The status of the position itself (and taught as such).
Point one is not considered a true representation of status since that
is a view fostered by non-priests and point two is not strictly valid
since the Catholic Ekklesia differentiates positions via 'callings'.
Either way Catholics view the positions within their Ekklesia as a
calling to which they enter into; any reference to a supposed 'status'
is secondary.
Authority on the other hand is a completely different matter; many
people confuse status with authority within the Catholic Ekklesia.
>A Catholic priest is a priest to his dying day (unless he gets
>convicted of heresy or something on that scale). Even if
>he actually is fully retired he is still a priest.
True.
>The Baha'i has no status or role except those in the job
>description s/he is currently doing.
The Catholic also has no status or role except within his 'role' or
calling and that must conform to his 'job' description (i.e. vows and
responsibilities).
>(2) There are certain ceremonies or rituals or whatever in the Catholic
>Faith which are not considered spiritually valid unless a priest in
>involved. Baptism, confession, etc.
True.
>While there are certain administrative and arguably spiritual functions
>which only a Baha'i institution can do (e.g. register someone as a
>Baha'i) there is no event which requires the presence of a particularly
>qualified individual such as a Counsellor.
The amount of things (or types of functions) one is called to do in
their office does not negate that certain people in a certain position
are still called to perform some spiritual or legislative function.
Best Wishes.
- Res.
John MacLeod
>
> Well yes and no; it depends on how you understand (and interpret) the
> words 'status' and 'job'.
>
Yes, I used the words poorly. The 'status' I meant is something close to
your use of 'calling' but I understood that becoming a priest involved
rather more than having a 'calling'. Perhaps I'm wrong but isn't the
ceremony of becoming a priest (is it consecration?) recognition that the
calling was true but also that the 'called' one had completed the necessary
training? Perhaps the word 'station' as used in the Baha'i Faith would do
as it avoids the secular meanings of 'status' but I'm not sure if the word
is commonly used elsewhere.
I think I might make my meaning clearer by being more specific. Perhaps the
Baha'i role that bears the closest superficial resemblance to a priest is an
ABM. (Auxiliary Board Member). Despite what we may say colloquially nobody
ever 'becomes an ABM' or 'gets appointed to be an ABM' per se. One can only
be appointed to a specific vacancy so that one becomes 'ABM for Propagation
for Scotland' or similar. The vacancy must exist first. It is quite
impossible to be an ABM unless you have such a specific job. If the job
vanishes in a reorganisation then you automatically stop being an ABM.
Vacancies are never created to accommodate a suitable candidate. In fact
there are no candidates. One cannot apply, there is no qualifications you
can sit for, any adult Baha'i is eligible. You can however refuse the job
(quite common as an ABM can not sit on an elected body and some people
prefer to serve in the elected side). If you refuse, you are of course, not
an ABM.
If I'm not mistaken the situation is different for priests. The process of
becoming a priest, as far as I know, is not directly related to where and
how you will be asked to serve the Church. If the task you are assigned
(say being Parish priest of Isle of Rona) ceases to exist (all the
inhabitants have left Rona which is now uninhabited) you are still a priest
and another task will be found for you.
Another aspect of the above is that there is no concept of being 'called' to
be an ABM. In fact, if one was to express a desire or interest in being an
ABM I suspect many Baha'is would regard this as personal ambition and view
it with distaste.
Researcher
>
>>"Researcher" wrote:
>>
>> Well yes and no; it depends on how you understand (and interpret) the
>> words 'status' and 'job'.
>
>Yes, I used the words poorly. The 'status' I meant is something close to
>your use of 'calling' but I understood that becoming a priest involved
>rather more than having a 'calling'.
Partially; the initial step is a calling or perhaps better termed an
'assumed calling' as it may not be for sometime before the person
realizes or accepts it is indeed his 'true' calling. Likewise he may
find out it is not his calling and leave.
Others on the other hand appear to be called (no testing or trial
period within their minds or works) and simply go on from there in
their vocational training.
>Perhaps I'm wrong but isn't the ceremony of becoming a priest
>(is it consecration?) recognition that the calling was true but
>also that the 'called' one had completed the necessary
>training?
Only *after* the person first believes that they were/are called. The
steps beyond the initial calling are to sort out whether that first
desire to be a priest was correct or not.
As to 'consecration' phew that is a topic in itself and has quite a
few shades of meaning, including physical icons related to ritual and
worship.
>Perhaps the word 'station' as used in the Baha'i Faith would do
>as it avoids the secular meanings of 'status' but I'm not sure if the word
>is commonly used elsewhere.
LOL you have me there; I am not sure myself.
>I think I might make my meaning clearer by being more specific. Perhaps the
>Baha'i role that bears the closest superficial resemblance to a priest is an
>ABM. (Auxiliary Board Member). Despite what we may say colloquially nobody
>ever 'becomes an ABM' or 'gets appointed to be an ABM' per se. One can only
>be appointed to a specific vacancy so that one becomes 'ABM for Propagation
>for Scotland' or similar. The vacancy must exist first. It is quite
>impossible to be an ABM unless you have such a specific job. If the job
>vanishes in a reorganisation then you automatically stop being an ABM.
>
>Vacancies are never created to accommodate a suitable candidate. In fact
>there are no candidates. One cannot apply, there is no qualifications you
>can sit for, any adult Baha'i is eligible. You can however refuse the job
>(quite common as an ABM can not sit on an elected body and some people
>prefer to serve in the elected side). If you refuse, you are of course, not
>an ABM.
Okay.
>If I'm not mistaken the situation is different for priests. The process of
>becoming a priest, as far as I know, is not directly related to where and
>how you will be asked to serve the Church. If the task you are assigned
>(say being Parish priest of Isle of Rona) ceases to exist (all the
>inhabitants have left Rona which is now uninhabited) you are still a priest
>and another task will be found for you.
That is right; but it must be a task suited to your abilities (well
there have been exceptions to this in history but that is another long
issue).
One also has the right to seek a cause or role that they believe
suites them within the confines of Catholic authority (and generally
subject to an internal decision).
>Another aspect of the above is that there is no concept of being 'called' to
>be an ABM. In fact, if one was to express a desire or interest in being an
>ABM I suspect many Baha'is would regard this as personal ambition and view
>it with distaste.
For Catholics it is the opposite since the arduous studying and vows
that it entails (along with hardships) is one of a dedicated life
following their Lord and Church and hence usually weeds out any
personal ambition.
Personal ambition often flourishes where one only has to complete task
A -> B-> (etc) with little or no hardship involved.
Again even if some slip through (and it happens in almost all
religions) they are still subject to the Church rulings, if/when
caught.
Also I should point out that there are so many different ways one can
serve within the hierarchy that I dare say one would be hard pressed
to not find a place to fit it LOL.
- Res.
Researcher
>>Researcher wrote:
>> What is meant by occultation within the Bahai understanding?
>
>Paul has the background material. For some 200 odd years a series of 11
>Imams lead the Shiah community; some of them were martyred as enemies of
>the Kalif. With the 12th, a child, possibly kidnapped, the line came to
>an end. The Ithna Ashariyah, aka the Twelvers, believed the Imam had
>disappeared, was still living over a thousand years, and would reappear
>in the fullness of time. This disappearance is the occultation.
Yes I am familiar with the Shia understanding of this along with the
Ahlul-Bayt question.
Some appear to believe that the Imam Madhi is the 12th while others
(to differing degrees) believe a variety of things in between.
>The Baha'is would be unlikely to describe the situation w/ the Guardian
>as "an occultation". Such a description would imply an element of
>superstition which good Baha'is ought to avoid.
Okay.
>> So this difference mainly hinges on the belief (or assumption) that
>> the Guardians are meant to continue on.
>
>I think we Baha'is have had an attachment to our expectation of a
>perpetuity of Guardians, and I think this attachment has been bad for
>us. Certainly, the statements of Shoghi Effendi, whom we don't consider
>to be a prophet of either sort, suggest a continuity. However, the text
>of the "Will and Testament" does not guarantee a successor; for example,
>if the Guardian went on a family vacation with his son (and designated
>successor), they might both die in a plane crash, a boating accident,
>etc. and the "Will and Testament" has no mechanism for identifying a
>successor in these possible scenarios, BUT it does emphasize the
>importance of not having a power struggle in such a case.
Very good points.
So if I understand this correctly; the Will and Testament does lay
down a precept for unity (I assume via the mechanism of voting) and it
was upon that unity (and the resulting votes) that a majority
agreement was reached in the absence of a successor.
>When Shoghi Effendi passed away w/o a clear successor Guardian, despite
>our shortcomings as a community, the Baha'is were largely united; Mason
>Remey's eventual counter-claim being the only defection from the larger
>community.
I understand now.
>> Were these 'hands' in complete agreement?
>
>Again, Paul has anwered correctly. The Hands issued a statement after
>the death of Shoghi Effendi. Per the "Will and Testament" it was their
>job to assent to Shoghi Effendi's nominated successor, so the Baha'i
>community expected them to announce this. Instead, despite every effort
>to find some nomination, even to include a search for a will, despite
>clear instruction that the nomination was not to be made via a will,
>they (to include Charles Mason Remey), announced that the Guardian had
>died w/o a successor. Three years later Mason Remey changed his mind
>and decided that Shoghi Effendi had nominated him obscurely, and
>demanded that the Baha'i community recognize him as such. He did draw
>off a few Baha'is who subsequently abandoned him as they further split
>into subfactions.
Did Charles Mason Remey provide any proof (in the form of testimonies
or written instructions) as to why he believed he was the next
successor?
>> The elections you mentioned, how are they performed?
>
>The "Will and Testament" reads,
>"By this House is meant the Universal House of Justice, that is, in all
>countries a secondary House of Justice must be instituted, and these
>secondary Houses of Justice must elect the members of the Universal one."
>
>At the time of the Guardian, the countries with Baha'i national
>communities, had National Spiritual Assemblies, and these NSAs elect the
>Universal House of Justice every five years.
Thank you; Paul cleared this point up for me whilst giving me a few
other thing to thinks about. :-)
>> Does every Bahai
>> have an equal vote or does a special council exist which votes?
>
>It would be the National Spiritual Assemblies. I think there are over
>200 of them, to include one for the contiguous USA, one for Alaska, one
>for Hawaii, etc.
Okay.
>> Is there a place within the Bahai writings where the Universal House
>> of Justice is actually mentioned as being infallible? If so where?
>
>There are two kinds of infallibility. In one, when God calls the
>darkness light, well, then it _is_ light, because God said so. They
>don't have this kind of infallibility. The other kind of infallibility
>is a moral infallibility. If the morally infallible were to say I
>should defend my country with my life, then that is the right thing for
>me to do, in the eyes of God and if the morally infallible were to say
>that my country was being liberated from a despotic tyrant, and I should
>not resist, then, that is the right thing for me to do in the eyes of
>God. No water gets turned to wine with moral infallibility.
I understand, 'ex cathedra' is often misunderstood (even today)
without solid distinctions it can become rather blurred.
>In the tablet of Baha'u'llah entitled "Bisharat" (Glad Tidings) we read:
>
>"Inasmuch as for each day there is a new problem and for every problem
>an expedient solution, such affairs should be referred to the Ministers
>of the House of Justice that they may act according to the needs and
>requirements of the time. They that, for the sake of God, arise to serve
>His Cause, are the recipients of divine inspiration from the unseen
>Kingdom. It is incumbent upon all to be obedient unto them."
>
>http://www.bahai-library.com/writings/bahaullah/tb/2.html
>In "Ishraqat" (Splendors), we read:
>
>"Inasmuch as for each day there is a new problem and for every problem
>an expedient solution, such affairs should be referred to the House of
>Justice that the members thereof may act according to the needs and
>requirements of the time. They that, for the sake of God, arise to serve
>His Cause, are the recipients of divine inspiration from the unseen
>Kingdom. It is incumbent upon all to be obedient unto them."
>
>http://www.bahai-library.com/writings/bahaullah/tb/7.html
Thank you for the above references.
>> If not; is the idea of infallibility based upon (or an extension of)
>> the idea that: because the Guardians were infallible so to must the
>> Universal House of Justice infallible?
>
>That is not why I see the House as infallible. Baha'u'llah chartered
>the House of Justice, Himself. It is the enduring institution of His
>dispensation. Hands, Counsellors, Guardians, etc. will have come and
>gone while the House persists.
I see now; so it is the collective institution which is infallible and
not necessarily the individual.
>> Perhaps he is talking about 'some' of the Jesuit conduct in times
>> past. Personally I remember fondly some of the theological discussions
>> I have had with Jesuit friends.
>
>You are doubly generous. Yes, the Jesuits are admired for certain
>intellectual disciplines. When I was a high school debater we looked
>forward to our debates with a Jesuit high school because they rightly
>prided themselves on this.
For me it was within the seminary; they were interesting times (and
enjoyable) especially so when friends dropped in from either other
countries to return visits I made to their Mosques, Buddhist Temples
etc.
BTW I am not a Catholic .... just thought I would let anyone know
incase they assumed I had a bias in that direction.
>Fred, on the other hand, was not
>complimenting the Jesuits.
Well there is a long history between the Jesuits and Protestant
groups; both sides did things which should (hopefully) never occur
again.
Likewise certain myths have sadly persisted to this day regarding both
the Jesuits and the Protestants ... but that is another story.
>I think it was Paul who pointed out how you've improved the place. I
>hope you are being entertained.
Thank you but you do me an injustice Sir; it actually is all of you
(whom make this place your home) who have done all the work and I have
been most fortunate to meet thinking people here from all sides of
this discussion.
> I am looking forward to question #2 all ready.
LOL the same from my end. I realize that such a discussion is more
theological than anything else and hence beyond absolute proof either
way; though I would like to understand the Bahai view regarding
Manifestations and interpretative principles.
>- Mr. Bad
Again thank you for your time.
- Res.
Mr. Bad Judgement
Researcher wrote:
>>"Mr. Bad Judgement" wrote:
>
>
>>>Researcher wrote:
>
(snip)
>
>
>>>So this difference mainly hinges on the belief (or assumption) that
>>>the Guardians are meant to continue on.
>>
>>I think we Baha'is have had an attachment to our expectation of a
>>perpetuity of Guardians, and I think this attachment has been bad for
>>us. Certainly, the statements of Shoghi Effendi, whom we don't consider
>>to be a prophet of either sort, suggest a continuity. However, the text
>>of the "Will and Testament" does not guarantee a successor; for example,
>>if the Guardian went on a family vacation with his son (and designated
>>successor), they might both die in a plane crash, a boating accident,
>>etc. and the "Will and Testament" has no mechanism for identifying a
>>successor in these possible scenarios, BUT it does emphasize the
>>importance of not having a power struggle in such a case.
>
>
> Very good points.
>
> So if I understand this correctly; the Will and Testament does lay
> down a precept for unity (I assume via the mechanism of voting) and it
> was upon that unity (and the resulting votes) that a majority
> agreement was reached in the absence of a successor.
>
I'm with you on the value of unity being stressed in the "Will and
Testament", and I believe it is stressed in other places. I would like
to point out though, that there is one truth (though it is broad and
vast, what is true is one), unity is in adherence to that one truth, or,
pursuit of it. I'm not sure where you are going with the majority
agreement being reached in the absence of a successor. I don't see what
is being agreed on that you may be referring to.
>
(snip)
>
>
>>>Were these 'hands' in complete agreement?
>>
>>Again, Paul has anwered correctly. The Hands issued a statement after
>>the death of Shoghi Effendi. Per the "Will and Testament" it was their
>>job to assent to Shoghi Effendi's nominated successor, so the Baha'i
>>community expected them to announce this. Instead, despite every effort
>>to find some nomination, even to include a search for a will, despite
>>clear instruction that the nomination was not to be made via a will,
>>they (to include Charles Mason Remey), announced that the Guardian had
>>died w/o a successor. Three years later Mason Remey changed his mind
>>and decided that Shoghi Effendi had nominated him obscurely, and
>>demanded that the Baha'i community recognize him as such. He did draw
>>off a few Baha'is who subsequently abandoned him as they further split
>>into subfactions.
>
>
> Did Charles Mason Remey provide any proof (in the form of testimonies
> or written instructions) as to why he believed he was the next
> successor?
>
I believe he made a statement to that effect. I had not concerned
myself with the details. The basis for a valid claim, would be in
meeting the clear requirements of the "Will and Testament".
Specifically, that his nomination from the Guardian, during the
Guardian's lifetime, be assented to by a group of nine Hands of the
Cause. Given the Hands unanimous statement to the effect that they had
never been directed by the Guardian to assent to the nomination of a
successor, the Remey argument falls into some excuse as to why the terms
of the "Will and Testament" were not applicable to his appointment.
Yet, even if we were to accept that the "Will and Testament" were
abrogated for Remey's appointment as Guardian, there is still the
contradiction problem. If Mason Remey were the Guardian after Shoghi
Effendi, then, what he said about Baha'i matters would be subject to the
moral infallibility described earlier. For example, were the Guardian
to declare the office of the Guardian to be vacant, then, it would be
the aurhoritative interpretation that the office was vacant. In fact,
that is what Mason Remey had done if we accepted him as the Guardian
upon Shoghi Effendi's demise, because, he, along the the Hands, had told
the Baha'is of the world that Shoghi Effendi had died and left no
successor.
>
(snip)
>
>
>
>>>Is there a place within the Bahai writings where the Universal House
>>>of Justice is actually mentioned as being infallible? If so where?
>>
>>There are two kinds of infallibility. In one, when God calls the
>>darkness light, well, then it _is_ light, because God said so. They
>>don't have this kind of infallibility. The other kind of infallibility
>>is a moral infallibility. If the morally infallible were to say I
>>should defend my country with my life, then that is the right thing for
>>me to do, in the eyes of God and if the morally infallible were to say
>>that my country was being liberated from a despotic tyrant, and I should
>>not resist, then, that is the right thing for me to do in the eyes of
>>God. No water gets turned to wine with moral infallibility.
>
>
> I understand, 'ex cathedra' is often misunderstood (even today)
> without solid distinctions it can become rather blurred.
>
We have this joke about "pass the salt". When Baha'u'llah sits down for
dinner, and says, "pass the salt", or, "this is moist chicken breast",
is this the voice of God? I hope you enjoy that as much as a few of my
friends do. I did not see where the ex cathedra rolled in to the moral
infallibility. I would pass the salt regardless if it were the request
of a table mate, or the voice of God.
>
(snip)
>
>>>If not; is the idea of infallibility based upon (or an extension of)
>>>the idea that: because the Guardians were infallible so to must the
>>>Universal House of Justice infallible?
>>
>>That is not why I see the House as infallible. Baha'u'llah chartered
>>the House of Justice, Himself. It is the enduring institution of His
>>dispensation. Hands, Counsellors, Guardians, etc. will have come and
>>gone while the House persists.
>
>
> I see now; so it is the collective institution which is infallible and
> not necessarily the individual.
>
In the case of the House, yes. In the case of the Guardian, the
individual was the institution. His official Baha'i 'authoritiative'
opinions were in written letters. Shoghi Effendi encouraged the Baha'is
to refer back to written records which had been authenticated, over the
rumors precipitated from hearsay.
We often act like we are at home, in a fraternity house, or a club house
from "Spanky and Our Gang". It requires a bit of discipline to keep the
tigers and lions from horsing around.
>
>>I am looking forward to question #2 all ready.
>
>
> LOL the same from my end. I realize that such a discussion is more
> theological than anything else and hence beyond absolute proof either
> way; though I would like to understand the Bahai view regarding
> Manifestations and interpretative principles.
>
We have differences here. I understand "interpretation" to be the
process of nullifiaction, while someone else sees it as closer to
elucidation. For example, Jesus condemned the Pharisees for
interpreting the law into having no effect. Baha'u'llah pared back on
polygamy, from the allowance of up to four wives, to no more than two
wives, and 'Abdu'l Baha interpreted that as really only one wife.
- Mr. Bad
Researcher
>>Researcher wrote:
>> So if I understand this correctly; the Will and Testament does lay
>> down a precept for unity (I assume via the mechanism of voting) and it
>> was upon that unity (and the resulting votes) that a majority
>> agreement was reached in the absence of a successor.
>>
>
>I'm with you on the value of unity being stressed in the "Will and
>Testament", and I believe it is stressed in other places. I would like
>to point out though, that there is one truth (though it is broad and
>vast, what is true is one), unity is in adherence to that one truth, or,
>pursuit of it.
Okay.
> I'm not sure where you are going with the majority
>agreement being reached in the absence of a successor. I don't see what
>is being agreed on that you may be referring to.
Sorry ... my fault for not being clear.
I was thinking (along the lines) that whether or not a successor is
present (now-a-days) it would make little difference since the system
you have in place functions either way.
As to the majority; by this I meant that if the majority agree and
there is a voting system in place it seems to be quite a fair system
and the issue of a successor (now-a-days) becomes a non-issue (well
for the majority of Bahai's anyway).
>> Did Charles Mason Remey provide any proof (in the form of testimonies
>> or written instructions) as to why he believed he was the next
>> successor?
>>
>
>I believe he made a statement to that effect. I had not concerned
>myself with the details. The basis for a valid claim, would be in
>meeting the clear requirements of the "Will and Testament".
>Specifically, that his nomination from the Guardian, during the
>Guardian's lifetime, be assented to by a group of nine Hands of the
>Cause. Given the Hands unanimous statement to the effect that they had
>never been directed by the Guardian to assent to the nomination of a
>successor, the Remey argument falls into some excuse as to why the terms
>of the "Will and Testament" were not applicable to his appointment.
>
>Yet, even if we were to accept that the "Will and Testament" were
>abrogated for Remey's appointment as Guardian, there is still the
>contradiction problem. If Mason Remey were the Guardian after Shoghi
>Effendi, then, what he said about Baha'i matters would be subject to the
>moral infallibility described earlier. For example, were the Guardian
>to declare the office of the Guardian to be vacant, then, it would be
>the aurhoritative interpretation that the office was vacant. In fact,
>that is what Mason Remey had done if we accepted him as the Guardian
>upon Shoghi Effendi's demise, because, he, along the the Hands, had told
>the Baha'is of the world that Shoghi Effendi had died and left no
>successor.
Okay.
>> I understand, 'ex cathedra' is often misunderstood (even today)
>> without solid distinctions it can become rather blurred.
>>
>
>We have this joke about "pass the salt". When Baha'u'llah sits down for
>dinner, and says, "pass the salt", or, "this is moist chicken breast",
>is this the voice of God? I hope you enjoy that as much as a few of my
>friends do. I did not see where the ex cathedra rolled in to the moral
>infallibility. I would pass the salt regardless if it were the request
>of a table mate, or the voice of God.
ROTFL.
Good point; I must remember this one next time I am in a discussion on
this topic. Thank you.
>> I see now; so it is the collective institution which is infallible and
>> not necessarily the individual.
>
>In the case of the House, yes. In the case of the Guardian, the
>individual was the institution. His official Baha'i 'authoritiative'
>opinions were in written letters. Shoghi Effendi encouraged the Baha'is
>to refer back to written records which had been authenticated, over the
>rumors precipitated from hearsay.
Understood.
>We often act like we are at home, in a fraternity house, or a club house
>from "Spanky and Our Gang". It requires a bit of discipline to keep the
>tigers and lions from horsing around.
:-)
>> LOL the same from my end. I realize that such a discussion is more
>> theological than anything else and hence beyond absolute proof either
>> way; though I would like to understand the Bahai view regarding
>> Manifestations and interpretative principles.
>
>We have differences here. I understand "interpretation" to be the
>process of nullifiaction, while someone else sees it as closer to
>elucidation. For example, Jesus condemned the Pharisees for
>interpreting the law into having no effect. Baha'u'llah pared back on
>polygamy, from the allowance of up to four wives, to no more than two
>wives, and 'Abdu'l Baha interpreted that as really only one wife.
That is a good distinction to make; but yes you are right we may see
this somewhat different; however what you have said (in the above
paragraph) is actually right I should have been a bit more careful in
choosing my words.
>- Mr. Bad
Thank you once again.
Best Wishes
- Res.
Novice Apologist
> You must excuse my lack of knowledge here regarding the Bahai faith,
> but were you serious in the above statement? Do Bahai's really believe
> that Covenant Breaking is hereditary?
Dear Researcher:
Not hereditary in the sense of biological, but in the sense of family
influence:
"He noted the report of ... about her meeting with the grandchild of
Subhi Azal. He feels that the friends should as much as possible avoid
her, as it is very unlikely she has anything but prejudice against
Bahá'u'lláh, in view of her background."
(From a letter on behalf of Shoghi Effendi dated 24 October 1947 to a
National Spiritual Assembly)
"No intelligent and loyal Bahá'í would associate with a descendant of
Azal, if he traced the slightest breath of criticism of our Faith, in
any aspect, from that person. In fact these people should be
strenuously avoided as having an inherited spiritual disease -- the
disease of Covenant-breaking! Certainly such matters should be brought
to the attention of the Assembly or National Spiritual Assembly within
whose jurisdiction they occur.
(From a letter on behalf of Shoghi Effendi dated 9 December 1948 to an
individual believer)
"The friends are sometimes surprisingly naive and superficial in their
approach to the subject of Covenant-breakers. They do not seem to
understand that the descendants of Azal, with their mother's milk,
drank hatred of Bahá'u'lláh, just as the descendants of Muhammad-Ali
and his relatives have imbibed from babyhood a false concept of the
Master. It takes practically a miracle to overcome this lifelong habit
of wrong thought. Now, however, he has told the German believers to
shun her."
(From a letter dated 18 August 1949 written on behalf of the Guardian
to a National Spiritual Assembly)
"It should be explained that descendants of Covenant-breakers who have
not positively repudiated their forebears and sought readmittance to
the Cause should be viewed with caution as they may well have received
the poison of Covenant-breaking from their parents and would then have
to be shunned by the friends.
(From a memorandum of the Universal House of Justice to the Hands of
the Cause in the Holy Land dated 2 December 1971)
http://bahai-library.com/?file=compilation_non-association_covenant_breakers.html
Novice
Finnegan's Wake
"Novice Apologist" <novicea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1e6e10a3.04103...@posting.google.com...
> Researcher <auth@no_email.com> wrote
>
> > You must excuse my lack of knowledge here regarding the Bahai faith,
> > but were you serious in the above statement? Do Bahai's really believe
> > that Covenant Breaking is hereditary?
>
> Dear Researcher:
>
> Not hereditary in the sense of biological, but in the sense of family
> influence:
Don't forget the statement infra "these people should be strenuously avoided
as having an inherited spiritual disease -- the disease of
Covenant-breaking" and you'll see that it definitely is em! er! a hereditary
condition which is practically incurable.
Hess
>
> "Novice Apologist" <novicea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1e6e10a3.04103...@posting.google.com...
>> Researcher <auth@no_email.com> wrote
>>
>> > You must excuse my lack of knowledge here regarding the Bahai faith,
>> > but were you serious in the above statement? Do Bahai's really believe
>> > that Covenant Breaking is hereditary?
>>
>> Dear Researcher:
>>
>> Not hereditary in the sense of biological, but in the sense of family
>> influence:
>
> Don't forget the statement infra "these people should be strenuously
> avoided
> as having an inherited spiritual disease -- the disease of
> Covenant-breaking" and you'll see that it definitely is em! er! a
> hereditary
> condition which is practically incurable.
>
for you, left alone an offspring of a covenant breaker.