MORAL RELATIVISM
Polychrysos
moral relativism and progressive revelation in the faith. I invite
anyone interested in the challenges Baha'is currently face to give it a
read.
MORAL RELATIVISM AND THE BAHA'I FAITH
A wise man once wrote that the measure of a philosophy can be taken
from its detractors. Great ideas have always had great enemies. And
moral relativism has, of late, attracted some very prominent opponents.
Not long before he was elected to what must surely be the largest
organized church in the world, the current pope Benedict XVI warned the
Catholic faithful about this in no uncertain terms. "We are
moving," he said "towards a dictatorship of relativism . . . that
recognizes nothing definite and leaves only one's own ego and one's own
desires as the final measure." Very shortly after that, no less a
person than the president of the United States praised the previous
pope for resisting "the tides of moral relativism" and warned the
nation's schools not to "surrender to moral confusion and
relativism." As far as ideas go, moral relativism seems very good at
earning condemnation from high places. This kind of attention from
great secular and religious leaders puts it in fairly exclusive
company.
But what is moral relativism? And why are popes and presidents alike
so eager to condemn it? And why is it especially important for
Baha'is to understand what is at stake? To start with, it is easy to
start off on the wrong foot. Many of the people who think moral
relativism a bad thing, and even a few who think it is a good thing
will try to say that it is the same as amoralism: the belief that there
is no standard of right and wrong, and that actions have no ethical
value. While this is one definition, it is not the only one, and it is
not the one I am interested in discussing. For there is also another
definition of moral relativism, one far more appealing, which I believe
a good number of people share with me, even if they would not use quite
the same words. Moral relativism, as I understand it, is not the
belief that right and wrong do not exist, but that they depend upon
circumstances. It means recognizing that what is good in one specific
time and place is not necessarily good in another, that the right
choice for one individual is not always the right choice for everyone.
As a philosophical perspective, moral relativism is different from
sheer amoralism in that it makes room, not only for morality, but even
for the idea of a single, divinely ordained truth. It does not mean
giving up belief in a God who represents a perfect and unchanging
standard of goodness. Someone can believe in the same sort of God
which the pope and the president say they do and still be a moral
relativist. Moral relativism does not claim that God or God's law
can change, only that as human beings, our relationship to that fixed
and unmoving truth is always shifting. It means looking at moral truth
the same way we have become used to looking at the sun since the time
of Galileo and Copernicus. I know that the sun does not really move
around the earth, but all the same, it rises and sets, swinging further
North in the summer and South in the winter. This is because, while
the sun does not actually move, I move in relation to it. In the same
way, right and wrong change from situation to situation not because God
changes, but because we do. This is what is meant by moral relativism.
It means that morality is relative to the human condition. It arises
out of the relationship between the unchanging nature of God and the
constantly changing needs of human beings.
To give another example, one drawn not from science but poetry, there
is a place at the end of the Divine Comedy where Dante describes what
it is like to behold God. When Dante looks, he says that he sees a
glorious whirl of colors and shapes: the vision of God is shifting
constantly before his eyes. But does this mean God is actually
changing? No, Dante explains, God is perfect and unchanging from the
beginning until the end of time. It is not God who is changing, but
his perception of God. Human eyes and human minds cannot take in the
fullness of the divine perfection all at once, they cannot take in more
than a little at a time. Like an ant looking at an elephant, Dante
sees one thing, then another and another: new aspects of God are always
being revealed to him. He is looking at one big thing but only seeing
one little piece at a time.
This attitude is especially relevant to Baha'is because it seems, to
me at least, to have a great deal in common with how Baha'u'llah
and Abdu'l Baha encourage us to understand the unfolding of
progressive revelation. Both assure us that the fundamental truth
which underlies all the world's religions is the same. However
unlike some of the teachings of Buddhism, Christianity, or Sikhism may
seem, they are all actually one, Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l Baha
would tell us. They explain the apparently great divergences in all of
these faiths through the concept of progressive revelation. This
characteristic Baha'i teaching works very much like the account Dante
gives of his vision of God. Just as Dante cannot behold God all at
once, but sees first one thing, then another; so Baha'u'llah and
Abdu'l Baha tell us that God's truth is gradually revealed through
his different manifestations. Each messenger of God gives us another
piece of the divine truth, but everything is part of a greater whole.
It seems to be changing because we can never see it all at once. The
message appears different in different times, they tell us, because
human needs are different as human communities change and grow. This
is the essence of progressive revelation, and it is also the essence of
moral relativism. What is right in one time and place, the founders of
the Baha'i faith make clear, is not necessarily right in another.
Abdu'l Baha defends the law of Moses not because it is right
eternally, but because it was right for the people who received it at
that particular time. Islam too had its time and place. But none of
these manifestations are right for all times and all places, which is
why God's revelation must always be renewed.
Then of course there are those people who, against what Baha'u'llah
and Abdu'l Baha would argue, try to insist that a single revelation
is universally valid. They put it forward as the unique, perfect, and
irreplaceable expression of divine truth. Some Muslims have viewed the
Koran this way, many Jews have encouraged this approach to the Torah,
and fundamentalist Christians believe it about the books of the Old and
New Testaments in combination. Whatever the revelation is, the
attitude is the same. The principles of the faith are considered
binding for all time, appropriate for every person in every situation.
If this were true, there would be no need for progressive revelation:
one divine dispensation would be enough. One book could contain all
the answers, and - as a few Jewish, Christian and Muslim believers
still seem to think today - could describe and foretell everything
that has happened or that ever will; either openly or encoded in
prophecy. The appeal of this position is obvious. People who believe
this can base their lives on the letter of the teaching without ever
needing to consider anything else. The difficult job the rest of us
face, the job of trying to judge whether or not to apply a given
principle to a situation, the task of thinking has been taken care of
for them. They can solve the most challenging life choices like
someone taking a test with the key right in front of them: they just
have to look up the answers and fill them in. What people like this
forget is the essential lesson of progressive revelation - and moral
relativism. Even if the truth stays put, human beings and their needs
go on moving. And so just as the sun keeps dropping beneath the
horizon, the truth is always running away from us, always on the move:
and if we stand still too long, it will leave us behind. This is
something that has happened again and again through recorded history.
People become attached to one revelation and will not accept the next.
Because they refuse to move, the truth gets away from them. As the law
of Moses gives way that of Jesus; or Mohammed is replaced by the Bab;
the people who hang on hardest to the truth they know are the very ones
who end up losing it. Situations change, and they stick with what was
right for the generation that came before them. And all the while, His
truth keeps marching on.
Up until this point, I think most Baha'is would be in agreement.
This seems to be a fairly common understanding of progressive
revelation: that while previous manifestations were appropriate for the
conditions they spoke to, it is not necessary or even wise to follow
all of their commandments indiscriminately here and now. They are not
useless or irrelevant, but we have to examine them carefully to decide
what still applies to our situation and what does not. Now, what fewer
Baha'is would agree to is the claim that this same sort of caution is
also required, to a lesser extent, in following the teachings of
Baha'u'llah himself. Many Baha'is seem to feel that because
Baha'u'llah is the most recent manifestation of God, the one whose
teachings are most relevant to our current needs, they can be followed
to the letter, without any discrimination whatsoever. This is
something I have heard many times among believers. On any issue, big
or small, from deciding the age to hold children responsible for crimes
to the rules for contracting a marriage, Baha'u'llah's word is
considered decisive. In less than two hundred years, the sacred
writings have become what the Torah has been for more than two
thousand, an infallible guide to the needs of every person and every
community.
Why so many believers feel this way is easy to understand. Life would
certainly be simple if we could apply what Baha'u'llah had taught
in an unvarying and inflexible way. The problem is that life is never
so simple: if it was we would not need progressive revelation in the
first place. If we could follow what Baha'u'llah taught without
the slightest change after more than one hundred years, why not after
two hundred years? Five hundred? One thousand? One book really could
be given for all times and all people. We would never have to think
about anything. Now, someone could easily object here that saying a
revelation eventually moves out of step with the needs of the time is
not the same as saying this happens right away. The Baha'i faith was
given for our age, so the argument runs, and so for our age it ought to
be binding. And essentially, I would agree. I happen, by profession,
to be a historian, so this is exactly the sort of thing I have
considered a great deal. And I have often thought that in all the most
fundamental ways, the situation of humanity in Baha'u'llah's day
was much the same as it is now. I believe that in the vast majority of
cases, what Baha'u'llah enjoined is as fresh and relevant as if it
were revealed yesterday. But does this mean that everything is the
same now as in the first years of the faith? Would anyone say that
nothing has changed since the nineteenth century?
And this brings me to the message that I wanted to share with my fellow
believers. Simply because our revelation is recent, it does not mean
that we can follow it blindly. We still cannot simply cut and paste
standard answers to standard questions. This is often sufficient in
Ruhi class, but no class can ever come up to the complexity of life.
We still have to make difficult choices. We still have to think. This
is why independent investigation of the truth is one of the central
principles of the faith. Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l Baha understood
that in all times, and above all in an age like this, when the
individual conscience has achieved a new dignity and importance, people
must be able to act with discretion. We need the flexibility to make
an adequate response to the complexity of the modern world. This is
why the faith has no priesthood. There is no need in this age, as
there was previously, for a professional caste of interpreters charged
with standing guard over the sacred scriptures. This has become a
responsibility that falls to every believer. Independent investigation
of the truth gives us the means to apply Baha'u'llah's teachings
creatively. It means that we have to the obligation to recognize when
the conditions of society change and modify our response.
And it is in this capacity, in keeping with my responsibility as a
believer to apply the principles of Baha'u'llah to our current
situation that I want to make a suggestion. With all respect for the
other members of the faith who may feel differently, I would like to
indicate a few places where, at this early point in our development, we
are allowing the truth to get away from us. Like the sun that is
always moving westward through the sky, God's truth has not been
still since Baha'u'llah's lifetime. In several crucial areas, I
believe we need to catch up. If we hang on too hard to the truth that
was revealed, we will end up clutching at nothing.
One example of how I believe conditions have changed significantly
since Baha'u'llah's day concerns sexual morality. In the
nineteenth century, homosexuality was not simply condemned,
homosexuality in the sense we know it today was not understood at all.
It was not even an issue. In this situation, Baha'u'llah could no
more be expected to write in favor of same-sex marriage than Mohammed
could have been expected to endorse women's suffrage in
seventh-century Arabia. It would be simply inconceivable. And yet
what responsible Muslim would claim that because the Koran does not say
women should have the right to vote, they should be shut out from
democratic elections? It is not so much that Mohammed is against women
voting, although in the context of his time and place there is little
doubt he would be, as that it never occurs to him. Discerning Muslims
understand that it is not the letter of the teachings that applies
here, but the principle. The Koran never says that women should have
all the rights men do, but it does say that women should be valued and
cherished, that their souls are of full importance to God. In
considering this question, they look past the precise wording to the
spirit that dwells within the words, looking not at what Mohammed said
specifically about women, but at the general dignity he accorded them
in his revelation.
In the same way, I think Baha'is must not stop with the strict and
uncompromising definition Baha'u'llah presents of marriage - two
people of the opposite sex - and instead we must see this issue in
terms of the spirit of the faith. Baha'u'llah certainly never
endorses gay marriage, but he also insists that religion must keep up
with science and remain in harmony with new discoveries. And it is
here that the matter becomes more complicated. This is because there
is less and less question what position science takes on this issue.
As more evidence emerges, it is becoming clear that sexual orientation
is something natural, the product of a combination of genetic and
environmental factors, and not a sin or vice as was universally
believed one hundred years ago. This is a classic example, I think, of
how we must decide between the strict letter of the Baha'i teachings
and their life-giving spirit. On the one hand, Baha'u'llah is very
clear about marriage being for a man and a woman only. On the other
hand, he is equally emphatic that religion be reconciled to science.
This is a case where there is no simple answer, where no Ruhi response
will do. It is necessary here to think. It is necessary to make a
choice.
And who should make this choice? In the past it would have fallen to
the priests, and individual believers would still have had someone else
to rule for them. That was the right way in the past, but it is not
the right way today. This revelation calls for independent
investigation of the truth, and this means all of us must decide
independently. If we are moral absolutists like the current president
and pope, if we have one correct answer for all times and all places
then this choice will be easy. But if we take the moral relativist
view, which I believe is a more appropriate Baha'i view; there is not
a simple solution. We cannot accept anything Baha'u'llah
prescribes blindly, but must test it to be sure that it really applies
to our particular situation. This goes for what the faith teaches on
same-sex marriage, on capital punishment, on reproductive rights, and
even on the prohibition of political involvement. This does not mean
the literal teachings on any of these issues are wrong, but it does
mean that they are not automatically right, either. Not only may they
be right in one time and not in another, they may be right for one
person but be utterly inappropriate for someone else. God's truth
never changes, but the human condition is relative, and even the best
rules need to be applied creatively and flexibly in relation to the
problems of each human being.
And it goes without saying that the same applies to what I have said
here. I do not presume to deal in the absolute truth, which is too big
for any human being to see all at once. I am only offering suggestions
which may or may not prove useful to other people in their individual
situations. I am not even sure about the specific recommendations I
have made. Perhaps this is not the best time for the faith to endorse
same-sex marriage; perhaps the world as a whole is still not ready. I
wrote this essay not so much to suggest that the literal teaching is
wrong on a specific issue, as to challenge the idea that it cannot be
wrong on any issue. More than single out any particular commandment, I
wanted to ask whether we need to swallow everything whole. It is not
this teaching of the faith or that which I object to, it is an attitude
which is often implied towards the teachings generally. We see this
attitude whenever someone tells us 'Baha'u'llah says' as if it
were an unanswerable response to any question, whenever someone uses
the phrase 'a fundamental principle of the faith' as if here all
difference, all discussion, all thought must stop. It is the attitude
that treats life like a Ruhi lesson where every question has a
ready-made answer waiting for it, an answer that is the same for every
person, short or tall, male or female, black or white. It is a
one-size-fits all approach to the difficult choices life puts to us.
With an attitude like this, there is no room for personal difference,
for an individual solution to fit you and me in our individual needs;
there is no allowance that truth, so often, is relative to each of us.
Another great principle of the faith is unity in diversity, and it is
to remind the believers, myself included, of the value of diversity
that I have written this. We need to recognize that just as God has a
unique and incomparable destiny for each age and for every individual,
so the answers to the difficult moral questions we face have not one
but many answers, depending on time and place and person. As human
beings we often want the choices we make to be simple, but God, who
thankfully is much wiser, always ensures that they never are.
Carl Brehmer
>wanted to ask whether we need to swallow everything whole. It is not
>this teaching of the faith or that which I object to, it is an
attitude
>which is often implied towards the teachings generally. We see this
>attitude whenever someone tells us 'Baha'u'llah says' as if it
>were an unanswerable response to any question, whenever someone
>uses the phrase 'a fundamental principle of the faith' as if here all
>difference, all discussion, all thought must stop.
Here is what Shoghi Effendi said on this subject:
"To be a Bahá'í is to accept the Cause in its entirety. To
take exception to one basic principle is to deny the authority and
sovereignty of Bahá'u'lláh, and therefore is to deny the Cause."
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to the National
Spiritual Assembly of the United States and Canada, May 30, 1930:
Bahá'í News, No. 43, August 1930, p. 3
". . . we should be careful to present the teachings in their
entirety and not to alter them for the sake of others. Allegiance to
the Faith cannot be partial and half-hearted. Either we should accept
the Cause without any qualification whatsoever or cease calling
ourselves Bahá'ís. The new believers should be made to realize that
it is not sufficient for them to accept some aspects of the teachings
and reject those which cannot suit their mentality in order to become
fully recognized and active followers of the Faith. In this way all
sorts of misunderstandings will vanish and the organic unity of the
Cause will be preserved." Directives from the Guardian, p. 11
Unlike the above guidance from the Guardian, your essay seems to
suggest that the laws and principles of the Baha'i Faith are a
smorgasbord from which Baha'is can pick and choose those that "suit
their mentality." Beyond that, it seems to even suggest that Baha'is
can, with clear conscience, directly disobey particular commands within
the Baha'i Writings, i.e., the prohibition against same-sex marriages
or the prohibition against political involvement, if they personally
feel that those commands are antiquated and that the modern Western
moral code of conduct is more enlightened.
Eventhough individuals, like Dante, may not be able to see "the
big picture" that doesn't mean that the Manifestations of God don't.
In fact, isn't that precisely why wise men defer to Their judgment?
Does not Progressive Revelation mean that the Manifestation of God
adapts the eternal truths of creation to each stage of human
development? I feel that it is a distortion of this principle to
suggest that it gives license to each individual Baha'i to further
adapt the Baha'i Teachings to his particular proclivities.
The importance of such an unflinching adherence to the teachings
of the Manifestation of God was touched on by Christ, Himself, at the
end of His Sermon on the Mount.
"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth
them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a
rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew,
and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a
rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them
not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon
the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds
blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of
it." Matthew 7:24-27
Polychrysos
Essentially, you get what I'm saying right. I'd rather say 'needs'
than 'proclivities' but I think we do need to be flexible and creative
in applying divine principles. This is why I am a member of Amnesty
International and it's why I march on behalf of gay rights, and against
the war in Iraq. Because god has told me to love other people and make
sure that they are accorded the same dignity and respect I receive
myself. I agree that we should stand by the *basic* principles of the
faith, but what is a basic principle? Unity of humanity, equality of
men and women? Surely I have stood by these principles? And you are
right that a manifestation of God sees and reveals more than any human
being could, but Baha'u'llah's manifestation is already more than one
hundred years old. As fallible human beings we need to move on with it
and apply it to the different conditions of our lives as best we can.
Brendan
sma...@jam.rr.com
Surely I have stood by these principles? And you are
> right that a manifestation of God sees and reveals more than any human
> being could, but Baha'u'llah's manifestation is already more than one
> hundred years old. As fallible human beings we need to move on with it
> and apply it to the different conditions of our lives as best we can.
Dear Brendan,
For anyone who takes the authority of revelation seriously there is a
danger here. Rather than bowing to God's will we simply change the
religion to suit our own personal tastes. But you are right that
religions need to be flexible and change with the times. That is why
Baha'u'llah ordained the Universal House of Justice, so we could
continue to receive divine guidance. But if each person is simply going
to do what suits them, we might as well have no revelation at all.
warmest, Susan
william pike
wrote:
>Carl,
>
>Essentially, you get what I'm saying right. I'd rather say 'needs'
>than 'proclivities' but I think we do need to be flexible and creative
>in applying divine principles.
Which is exactly the reason that there are near 3,000 versions of
Christianity and 500 versions of Muhammadism. It is also the reason
that God sends another Manifestation of God to mankind to straighten
out what mankind has done to His religion. There is one version of the
Baha'i Faith.
>This is why I am a member of Amnesty International
OK, I have been a member and also a member of the ACLU and
demonstrated during the civil rights movement and the Anti-Vietnam War
movements and marched and worked in other progressive movements, so
have many others.
>and it's why I march on behalf of gay rights
I am in favor of "Gay Rights" but marriage isn't one of those rights,
Neither is "free-love"nor is the right to "do as thy will".
>and against the war in Iraq.
Been there! Done that! got the T-shirt and the pillowcase.
>Because god has told me to love other people and make
>sure that they are accorded the same dignity and respect I receive
>myself.
I note the lower case "god" in your last sentence, probably a Freudian
slip.
Actually the Golden rule is to do unto others, as you would have done
unto you.
BAHA'I,Tablets of Baha'u'llah,p.64
And if thine eye be turned towards justice,
choose thou for thy neighbor that which
thou choosest for thyself.
CHRISTIANITY, Matthew 7:12
In everything, do to others what you would
have them do to you.
>I agree that we should stand by the *basic* principles of the
>faith, but what is a basic principle?
Obedience to God!
>Unity of humanity, equality of
>men and women?
You have left a few dozen out.
>Surely I have stood by these principles?
The ones that you agree with.
>And you are
>right that a manifestation of God sees and reveals more than any human
>being could, but Baha'u'llah's manifestation is already more than one
>hundred years old. As fallible human beings we need to move on with it
>and apply it to the different conditions of our lives as best we can.
And when fallible human beings screwup the religion that God has sent
because:
" Baha'u'llah's manifestation is already more than one hundred years
old.."
and
"As fallible human beings we need to move on with it
and apply it to the different conditions of our lives as best we can."
Sounds to me like the best way to insure that another Manifestation of
God will be sent sooner rather than later.
I might suggest that the Unitarian Universalist Church would probably
be a more comfortable fit for you.
Pax Terra
By their fruits you shall know them.
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering,
gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance"
Galatians 5
Polychrysos
Does it matter so much whether or not I capitalize goD? Do you think
He minds? What do you mean when you say it is a 'Freudian slip'. Do
you really feel typographical errors are a good guide to someone's
sincerity of belief? As to my point about demonstrating against the
war in Iraq and about being a member of Amnesty, well, I just meant
that these are things the UHJ doesn't seem to approve of -- the
memebership in Amnesty is explicitly forbidden -- but I do them anyway.
As for the Unitarians, I don't know how you could talk about that
being a 'fit'. I was born a Baha'i, I was raised a Baha'i and I love
the revelation of Baha'u'llah. So I tell you, I really don't see why I
would want to be a Unitarian (although it's fine for many people). It
makes me sad that you would think I don't belong here. Best wishes.
Brendan
william pike
<brenda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>William,
>
>Does it matter so much whether or not I capitalize goD? Do you think
>He minds? What do you mean when you say it is a 'Freudian slip'. Do
>you really feel typographical errors are a good guide to someone's
>sincerity of belief?
Depends, as I said possible a "Freudian slip' meaning a sub-conscious
addition or omission. The comment was tongue-in-cheek I apologize for
offending you.
> As to my point about demonstrating against the
>war in Iraq and about being a member of Amnesty, well, I just meant
>that these are things the UHJ doesn't seem to approve of -- the
>memebership in Amnesty is explicitly forbidden -- but I do them anyway.
BTW my membership with the Amnesty group was prior to me becoming a
Baha'i as were my demonstrations against the Vietnam war. I did serve
in the Air Force in the early 60's.
As I recall when a person signs a declaration card they swear that
they will obey the laws and ordinances of the Baha'i Faith. Contained
in this are directives regarding membership in various organizations,
for example The Guardian forbids Baha'is to be members of the Masonic
Order and other "secret societies".
If the Universal House of Justice forbids membership in Amnesty and a
Baha'i chooses to flagrantly disobey that law then they are liable for
administrative sanctions.
A Baha'i in good standing cannot be involved in an apparent homosexual
relationship and retain their administrative rights. I do know, and
am friends with several homosexual Baha'is; they remain celebrate just
as un-married heterosexual Baha'is do.
A Baha'i cannot consume alcohol in public without being sanctioned.
A Baha'i cannot engage in partisan politics without loss of voting
rights.
> As for the Unitarians, I don't know how you could talk about that
>being a 'fit'. I was born a Baha'i, I was raised a Baha'i and I love
>the revelation of Baha'u'llah.
Sounds to me like you have a cognitive dissonance. You want to be a
member of the Baha'i Faith but you don't want to be bound by the laws
or maybe just a few of the laws. There is an old saying,"In for a
dime, in for a dollar." There will come a time when you will have to
chose to fish or cut bait, I would suggest that you decide which
instead of waiting for the sword to fall. Either obey the Laws that
you have sworn to obey or don't, your choice. If you elect not to
obey them, then sooner or later you will be sanctioned.
I do recall a charismatic gentleman who was a well known Baha'i in the
area who told me that he would be buried with a 9 pointed star on his
tombstone. Three months later he had lost his administrative rights
for misconduct and eventually removed himself from the Baha'i Faith.
> So I tell you, I really don't see why I
>would want to be a Unitarian (although it's fine for many people). It
>makes me sad that you would think I don't belong here. Best wishes.
It makes me sad to see you going through the dissonance that you are.
I realize that this is a growth thing for you. Others including
myself have gone through the same types of tests. Some stayed and
some left the Baha'i Faith. You are going to be forced to make a
decision sooner or later whether you like it or not.
I have known a couple of ex-Baha'i's that have found that the UUChurch
a substitute.
Pax Terra
Ye shall know them by their fruits: Matt. 7:16
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering,
gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance": Gal. 5
Polychrysos
The essence of your posting is that I will have to choose between
obeying every injunction you mention, even the ones that don't fit me,
or being kicked out of the faith. What can I say, except that I hope
this isn't true? Understand me here, I don't just accept the
legitimacy of authority in the faith, I LOVE the institutions of the
faith: but love and disagreement can go together. As a human being,
even more so as I Baha'i, I have a right to dissent, to disagree, and
remain answerable to my own conscience. No offense, but I hope the
relevant authorities will not think as you do. I hope they will
respect my conscience and understand that I still have a great deal to
offer the cause of Baha'u'llah even if I dissent from some of their
opinions. I want to serve and I will serve as long as I am allowed to,
but as Socrates observed more than two thousand years ago, sometimes
the greatest service we can offer is criticism. I love the faith and
the institutions of the faith, and I will continue to criticize them
out of love, out of the hope that they can constantly improve, as long
as I am able.
And while it's not directly relevant to my case, that bit about the
fellow getting thrown out of the faith because of how he wanted to
decorate his tombstone... Well, that really doesn't seem fair to me.
Best wishes.
Brendan
Douglas McAdam
You seem to appreciate directness and so I do hope you will forgive me
for mine.
You say you are a mature and deepened Baha'i of long standing.
Therefor you should know Baha'u'llah has placed twin duties upon us and
we cannot have one without the other He said. To paraphrase it says we
must recognize the Manifestation and then obey. It says nothing about
we only do this if we agree. Also there are provisions in the Writings
for our conscience and a laid down policy for us to follow when we feel
confused, or disagree or something. This is a public forum and not the
place where one can go and get expert opinion for you are only going to
get fallible opinions here. My advice is to take your problem to the
Institutions like the Writings tell us to and then follow their advice.
regards,
doug
Polychrysos
The principle thing which puzzles me about your posting is the
suggestion that issues which concern the faith, issues which are of
vital concern to all believers, that these issues shouldn't be raised
in a public forum. This seems like a very suitable venue to debate the
things that matter to us most. Public forums are fine place to put
forward the vital example of open discussion and dialogue that
distinguishes the faith. As I've said elsewhere, it's easy to have
unity when you are always in agreement. That we can maintain unity and
maintain a civil tone while we dispute so sharply: to me this is a real
triumph of the cause, something to celebrate rather than lament.
And why should it be a problem that the opinions of the people here
happen to be fallible? Is that the same thing as saying they are
worthless? We only work through our fallible opinions by means of
discussion. Eventually, truth emerges, but only through the clash of
fallible viewpoints.
And I hope I didn't give anyone else the impression that I am an
exceptionally mature or deepened Baha'i. I am a Baha'i of longstanding
-- my whole life -- but maturity and deepening in the writings is an
ongoing process which no one ever completes. While I'm no wiser than
the next person, I am reasonably articulate. I am writing here not
because my views are specially profound, but because they are mine, and
because other believers I know have expressed similar feelings. Right
or wrong, this is what I think, and it is what at least a few other
believers -- admittedly a minority -- also think. Because I am good at
stringing words together I thought I was well-qualified to articulate
what I have been feeling. Ultimately, being heard matters as much as
being agreed with, and I chose this public forum to air different
concerns, not only mine but those I have heard from others. Thanks
again for the message.
Brendan
william pike
wrote:
>William,
>
>The essence of your posting is that I will have to choose between
>obeying every injunction you mention, even the ones that don't fit me,
>or being kicked out of the faith.
Please read again what I said: I said Administrative Sanctions (loss
of voting rights) not being declared a "covenant breaker' and removed.
A person can only leave the Baha'i Faith by withdrawing (formally or
informally) or being declared a "covenant breaker".
> What can I say, except that I hope
>this isn't true? Understand me here, I don't just accept the
>legitimacy of authority in the faith, I LOVE the institutions of the
>faith: but love and disagreement can go together. As a human being,
>even more so as I Baha'i,
You agreed to obey the laws and ordinances of the Baha'i Faith when
you declared your belief as a Baha'i. Now you say that you reject
that oath.
> I have a right to dissent, to disagree, and
>remain answerable to my own conscience.
Yes and NO, if there is a law or ordinance or ruling by an assembly
you have the right to partition for a review of that decision however
pending that review you still have to obey the rule/decision..
The procedure to follow is contained in many books on Baha'i
administration.
BTW I have personally appealed several decisions of Assemblies and
been vindicated by the National Assembly. I obeyed the decision and
followed administrative guidelines. The decision was overturned by
the National Spiritual Assembly.
>No offense, but I hope the relevant authorities will not think as you do.
> I hope they will>respect my conscience and understand that I still have a great deal to
>offer the cause of Baha'u'llah even if I dissent from some of their
>opinions.
In for a dime, in for a dollar.
>I want to serve and I will serve as long as I am allowed to,
>but as Socrates observed more than two thousand years ago, sometimes
>the greatest service we can offer is criticism.
> I love the faith and
>the institutions of the faith, and I will continue to criticize them
>out of love, out of the hope that they can constantly improve, as long
>as I am able.
I went through a similar circumstance shortly after I declared. I had
to come to the question of who was smarter God or me. If God was
smarter than I would have to obey even if I didn't see the wisdom. If
I was smarter than what was I doing listening to God when I already
knew better.
I decided that God knew more and I obeyed.
>And while it's not directly relevant to my case, that bit about the
>fellow getting thrown out of the faith because of how he wanted to
>decorate his tombstone... Well, that really doesn't seem fair to me.
Actually it had nothing to do with how he wanted to decorate his
tombstone. He was saying to me that "I will always be a Baha'i no
matter what." He was/got involved in misconduct and got his
Administrative Rights removed. He rejoined the army and later became
a Chaplin of another religion.
Polychrysos
Clearly, we can both agree to disagree on this, but I have to mention a
small thing. Sometimes you confuse me by mentioning something and then
saying it isn't relevant. If how the fellow wanted to decorate his
tombstone had nothing to do with how he got kicked out, why was it the
only relevant circumstance of his case you mentioned? It was the only
fact about him you told me, why shouldn't I think it was relevant to
his getting thrown out? And the same goes for when you brought up how
you'd been a member of Amnesty. It's just how my mind works, but why
bring it up, why mention that you HAVE been a member before you are a
Baha'i when my point was about being on presently. In the end it
doesn't matter, but I'd love to know why you mentioned the tombstone
decoration, or Amnesty, in the first place. Best wishes.
Brendan
william pike
wrote:
>William,
>
>Clearly, we can both agree to disagree on this, but I have to mention a
>small thing. Sometimes you confuse me by mentioning something and then
>saying it isn't relevant. If how the fellow wanted to decorate his
>tombstone had nothing to do with how he got kicked out, why was it the
>only relevant circumstance of his case you mentioned? It was the only
>fact about him you told me, why shouldn't I think it was relevant to
>his getting thrown out?
What I told you was exactly what he told me. My translation was that
he would always be a member of the Baha'i Faith and would die a member
of the Baha'i Faith. (BTW he was wrong). The rest is information
that came to light months later and under different circumstances and
from different people. .
Which I also related, to you.
I sort of wonder if you have ever heard the word hubris?
I had the same decision to make as you do. Who is smarter God or me?
there are two mutually exclusive answers:
#1 If God isn't smarter than what am I doing being a hypocrite and a
member of a organization that I don't believe in; espousing a religion
that I don't believe in.
or
#2 If God is smarter, then shut up and get with the program.
Pax Terra
God said BE!
and Symmetry was fractured!
sma...@jam.rr.com
> The essence of your posting is that I will have to choose between
> obeying every injunction you mention, even the ones that don't fit me,
> or being kicked out of the faith.
Dear Brendan,
The consequence of flagrantly disobeying the laws is that one loses
ones administrative rights, not that they are kicked out of the Faith
under usual circumstances. However, if a Baha'i is actively promoting
disobedience, I think it becomes a covenental issue and the Universal
House of Justice might well decide to remove someone from the rolls or
worse. But let's take the case of wanting to join Amnesty
International. It seems to me a Baha'i might have a number of choices.
1) Obey the Universal House of Jusitce and not joing Amnesty
International whenever to do so would not compromise Baha'i principles
or endanger the Faith.
2) Ignore what the House said and quietly join Amnesty International.
Such disobedience might well have spiritual consequences, but since it
isn't flagrant it probably wouldn't have administrative ones.
3) Publicly proclaim you are disobeying the House on this issue, which
is basically what you are doing. If after counselling, you persisted in
this course you might well lose your administrative rights.
4) Start a campaign encouraging others to ignore the House's
injunstions. At that level it becomes a covenental issue which could
jeopardize your membership in the community.
5) Decide it is more important to you to be a member of Amnesty
International than to be a Baha'i.
Understand me here, I don't just accept the
> legitimacy of authority in the faith, I LOVE the institutions of the
> faith: but love and disagreement can go together.
Baha'u'llah says, "Obey My laws for love of my Beauty."
He was not willing to separate love from obedience.
As a human being,
> even more so as I Baha'i, I have a right to dissent, to disagree, and
> remain answerable to my own conscience.
As a Baha'i you have an obligation to obey Baha'i laws whether you
disagree with them or not.
warmest, Susan
Gilberto Simpson
>But let's take the case of wanting to join Amnesty
> International. It seems to me a Baha'i might have a number of choices.
>
> 1) Obey the Universal House of Jusitce and not joing Amnesty
> International whenever to do so would not compromise Baha'i principles
> or endanger the Faith.
[...]
Hello everybody,
This discussion struck me as odd and raised a couple of questions with me:
Firstly, would it be prohibited to even participate in a Amnesty
Int'l letter-writing campaign (I remember in college Amnesty would
set up tables and you could read about the different cases they were
working on and you would be asked to write a letter to a foreign
government. You could do this without signing up as a "member" or
paying dues etc.)
Secondly, what does it mean to be a "political" organization for the
purposes of Bahai laws. It was my understanding that Amnesty
International wasn't "ideological" in the sense that it worked on
behalf of political prisoners who were being imprisoned by
governments which were both religious and secular, both on the right
and on the left.
To be honest I'm not intimately familiar with all of their workings
but they seem to look more like an NGO than some kind of political
party. I don't think they run candidates. As far as I can tell they
basically try to influence regimes to release prisoners by
writing a bunch of letters.
Did the UHJ specifically mention that Bahais are prohibited from
joining that organization or is it part of a more general
commandment?
Peace
Gilberto
Polychrysos
Bearing in mind that one can know a word without understanding it, your
message has to make me laugh a little. Having spent many hours among
the verses of Euripides -- "heko dios pais tende thebaion chtona" -- I
suppose I have to confess to having come across 'hybris' once or twice.
To answer your main point, I won't repeat myself. Check the Peter
Khan thread and you'll be able to read my latest response to Suzanne
Gerstner. There are many times, when what God does lies outside of our
moral accountability, that we can't understand, and shouldn't try. But
with our own life choices, we must understand. The essence of my
response to Suzanne, which through a regrettable accident was posted
twice, is that obeying a moral commandment we don't understand can't
possibly be pleasing to God. Do check it out.
Brendan
Polychrysos
I will go on publicly proclaiming my right, my obligation to do what I
am doing. This is not necessarily because I want others to do the
same, but because it is worth discussing regardless of whether they
think my example a good or a bad one. As for the bit about obeying
against our conscience, I would advise that you, like William, take a
look at my latest response to Susanne. God wants me to be truthful
with Him, and I am not going to pretend I think capital punishment just
or that I do not have an obligation to actively campaign on behalf of
political parites -- I was a volunteer for the New Democratic candidate
here in the last election. Even if God feels I am mistaken in doing
this, the last thing He wants is for me to act as if I have learned my
lesson without really learning it. I know that you will read what I
have said on the Peter Khan thread. Best wishes.
Brendan
JUNO...@aol.com
As a human being,
> even more so as I Baha'i, I have a right to dissent, to disagree, and
> remain answerable to my own conscience.
As a Baha'i you have an obligation to obey Baha'i laws whether you
disagree with them or not.
william pike
<brenda...@gmail.com> wrote:
Not really interested. Just a cautionary tale for others that may
contemplate the same set or a similar set of actions you are
espousing.
I am quite sure that you will do exactly what you want to do when you
want to do it no matter what you have sworn to. I think that you will
find yourself minus administrative rights in the near future and out
of the Baha'i Faith one way or another if you persist in flaunting
your disobedience.
As always it is your chioce.
Pax Terra
Ye shall know them by their fruits: Matt. 7:16
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering,
gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance": Gal. 5
Dean Betts
> possibly be pleasing to God.
It is very pleasing to God in my opinion, probably more pleasing than if we
understand.
It's called obedience.
Obedience without understanding is called faith.
God's commandments are for everyone, not just for those who understand them.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.15/49 - Release Date: 7/14/05
sma...@jam.rr.com
obeying a moral commandment we don't understand can't
> possibly be pleasing to God.
Dear Brendan,
This is what the House of Justice had to say in this regard:
"A Baha'i will understand that an upright life is based upon observance
of certain principles which stem from Divine Revelation and which he
recognizes as essential for the well-being of both the individual and
society. In order to uphold such principles, he knows that, in certain
cases, the voluntary submission of the promptings of his own personal
conscience to the decision of the majority is a conscientious
requirement, as in wholeheartedly accepting the majority decision of an
Assembly at the outcome of consultation."
http://methodologies.susanmaneck.com/
warmest, Susan
Dean Betts
> and I am not going to pretend I think capital punishment just
> or that I do not have an obligation to actively campaign on behalf of
> political parites -- I was a volunteer for the New Democratic candidate
> here in the last election.
It would really be better for all of us if you would stop broadcasting every
one of your actions which is contrary to the guidance of the Universal
House. Pretty soon you'll be telling about your favorite drinking spots.
Seriously, if you want to disobey Baha'i Law, please consider being quiet
about it.
Dean
Jimmy James, Capitalist Lion Tamer
On 7/15/05 11:33 AM, in article inged1hkdc2mpkfpm...@4ax.com,
"william pike" <w.h....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:50:05 CST, "Polychrysos"
> <brenda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Not really interested. Just a cautionary tale for others that may
> contemplate the same set or a similar set of actions you are
> espousing.
>
> I am quite sure that you will do exactly what you want to do when you
> want to do it no matter what you have sworn to. I think that you will
> find yourself minus administrative rights in the near future and out
> of the Baha'i Faith one way or another if you persist in flaunting
> your disobedience.
Yes, remember: if you open your mouth because you have a beef with the way
things are done, you're going to get tattled on and have your voting rights
taken away.
Some people like to busy themselves with the shortcomings of others.
sma...@jam.rr.com
Dear Brendan,
Since Baha'is are not really in the position to make such decisions I
think this is not even an issue.
> or that I do not have an obligation to actively campaign on behalf of
> political parites -- I was a volunteer for the New Democratic candidate
> here in the last election.
As you know Shoghi Effendi said that Baha'is were not allowed to do
this and it is something you could lose your voting rights for. I
suspect that there are plenty of Baha'is who quietly register for
political parties in the US so they can vote in the primaries. But
actiely participating in political campaigns can lead to sanctions.
Even if God feels I am mistaken in doing
> this, the last thing He wants is for me to act as if I have learned my
> lesson without really learning it.
I think you imagine you know more about what God wants than you think
you do. What you are suggesting would not only create chaos in the
Baha'i community but in every family and in the state as well. If you
don't find this out sooner you will know it as soon as your four year
old tries to avoid doing anything you tell him to with his whiney "but
whyyyy?'
You may even try and tell him why, but it will find it will do you no
good. He doesn't really want a reason why, he just wants to do what he
wants.
I hope your kids don't get run over by a truck because the last thing
you want is for them to act as if they have learned their lesson
without really learning it.
warmest, Susan
william pike
Actually contrary to your (incumbent's) protestations, there is a
procedure for requesting reconsideration of various ordinances for
those who are sincerely questioning. I have utilized them several
times and they do work. Are you really sincere about your questions
or not? Have you even attempted to utilize the avenues open to you?
Considering the postings that you have made here, I think not.
You appear to me to be like the man who buys a new car and comes out
in the morning to see that a tire is gone flat and then spends all
their time yelling and screaming and cursing at the car and tire
complaining about it. It makes for an interesting show but the person
doing it sure looks stupid to others.
>Some people like to busy themselves with the shortcomings of others.
I am reminded of the man who went to a leper colony. He looked in the
mirror one day and saw that he had contracted leprosy, He looked
again at his disfigured face and said, "But On Me It Looks Good!"
sma...@jam.rr.com
> Yes, remember: if you open your mouth because you have a beef with the way
> things are done, you're going to get tattled on and have your voting rights
> taken away.
Dear Incumbent,
Normally you either have to commit some *act* which is contrary to
Baha'i law *and* be openly bragging about it to lose your voting
rights. Given how public internet newsgroups are it is rather silly to
accuse someone of 'tattling' if it comes to the attention of the
institutions.
warmest, Susan
Steve Marshall
>As a human being,
>> even more so as I Baha'i, I have a right to dissent, to disagree, and
>> remain answerable to my own conscience.
>
>As a Baha'i you have an obligation to obey Baha'i laws whether you
>disagree with them or not.
Hi Susan,
I don't think it's ever appropriate for an individual to abdicate
their conscience, and to do something they believe is absolutely
wrong, because they have been told to do so by some other person or
body. In fact I thought this principle was established in
international law by the Nuremburg Convention.
In Roman Catholicism, there was (and is) a debate over whether an
individual believer must abdicate his or her own conscience if ordered
by the Church. Thomas of Aquinas adopted the position that the
conscience of the individual is inviolable -- as, more recently, has
Hans Kung.
Any Baha'i who might not feel in good conscience able to agree with a
ruling of the House, could be liable to administrative sanctions. But
if your conscience doesn't allow you to obey, then you just have to
face the music. It's not a stance to be taken lightly.
It seems to me that what you're talking about, Susan, is blind
obedience (taqlid) to religious authority, Baha'u'llah abrogated it.
Seven Valleys, p. 5: "It is incumbent on these servants that they
cleanse the heart--which is the wellspring of divine treasures--from
every marking, and that they turn away from imitation (taqlid), which
is following the traces of their forefathers and sires, and shut the
door of friendliness and enmity upon all the people of the earth."
Gleanings LXXV: Tear asunder, in My Name, the veils that have
grievously blinded your vision, and, through the power born of your
belief in the unity of God, scatter the idols of vain imitation
(asnam-i taqlid).
Gleanings p. 166: Such men have been, and will continue to remain, the
victims of blind imitation (ahl-i taqlid)
Iqan pp. 73-74: Consider how men have for generations been blindly
imitating their fathers (bar taqlid-i aba')
Iqan, p. 183: Muslim divines have "blindly submitted" (taqlidan) to
the truth of Muhammad, but would reject the Bab even if he gave the
same answers as the former.
Iqan p. 155: he would have preferred to suffer death than violate one
letter of those superstitious forms (umur-i taqlidiyyih) and manners
current amongst his people
Baha'u'llah insisted that individuals make up their own minds about
religious issues, in an impartial and fair-minded way, unswayed by
authorities such as their forebears or ecclesiastical figures.
In addition, Abdu'l-Baha on more than one occasion affirmed the
necessity of and goodness of "freedom of opinion" and "liberty of
conscience" (azadigi-yi vujdan); these passages can be found toward
the end of *A Traveller's Narrative* and throughout *Promulgation of
Universal Peace*.
There is a profound difference between the necessity for every Baha'i
to recognize the legitimate authority of the Universal House of
Justice to legislate for the community and make decisions as Head of
the faith, and the idea that any individual can ever legitimately hand
his or her conscience over to others to do with as they please.
(With thanks to Juan Cole for the ideas and the quotes)
ka kite
Steve
Douglas McAdam
This subject of conscience is a large one in terms of references in our
Writings by the Central Figures and the House of Justice.
My feeling is that if we insist on following our consciences regarding
the subject of obedience to Baha'is Laws we will cause tremendous harm
to the Faith and ourselves. One of the meanings of conscience is
explained by the House in one of their letters and I would prefer you
look it up and keep it in context rather that I should post it here.
One meaning is "with knowledge" isn't it? Doesn't *con* mean *with*
and *science* means *knowledge*. So what knowledge would an individual
possess that is greater than the Manifestation which would afford him
or her the ability to determine Baha'u'llah's laws are wrong for him or
her?
In another sense the word conscience has to do with knowing right from
wrong and that is why we have the Covenant, because people do not know
right from wrong and Baha'u'llah said the voices of conscience has been
stilled. We grow up with dos and don'ts from our parents, etc. and
that forms our conscience. Today, however, we are being asked to learn
a new conscience, a realistic one from the Covenant.
regards,
doug
Steve Marshall
>So what knowledge would an individual
>possess that is greater than the Manifestation which would afford him
>or her the ability to determine Baha'u'llah's laws are wrong for him or
>her?
I don't think this discussion has simply been about people deciding
Baha'u'llah's laws are wrong and going against them, although that's a
valid spin on the subject, I guess. I prefer to think of this issue as
being about individuals using their own moral compass to apply Baha'i
laws in the way they see best, and not simply practising blind
obedience.
Let's look at a concrete example that's already been mentioned --
membership of Amnesty International. The most recent letter from the
Universal House of Justice that I can find, offers the following
advice:
"...it is not appropriate for Baha'is to become members of Amnesty
International...
http://bahai-library.com/uhj/amnesty.interntl.html
It's probably a good idea to read the whole letter to get all the
nuances. But, for my money, the House is advising Baha'is not to
become members, and to use their discretion when working with AI to
avoid supporting efforts that are in conflict with Baha'i laws and
principles. There's a strong inference that AI is a political
organisation, and that Baha'is are not permitted to be members of
political organisations.
But this is advice to an individual believer, written in 1993. It's
not a law. The House hasn't, to my knowledge, legislated that Baha'is
are not to belong to AI. I'm a Baha'i in good standing and I'm not a
member of AI, but I collect money for the organisation on its appeal
day. If the House has a problem with that, and with my public
announcement, here, I'm sure it'll get back to me. It's good that way.
There does seem to be a double standard in all of this. Alan Wilcox is
a member of the National Advisory Council for the Human Rights
Commission of New Zealand, and is listed on its website as "Chairman,
Nat Spiritual Assembly of Baha'i of NZ"
http://www.hrc.co.nz/index.php?p=23967
The Human Rights Commission supports equal rights for gays, lesbians
and bisexuals -- which, in practical terms, means that their civil
unions be recognised in law in the same way heterosexual marriages
are. "Gay marriage" is something that the House appears not to
support. Yet an NSA chairman is openly involved in the Human Rights
Commission's top advisory body.
>Baha'u'llah said the voices of conscience has been
>stilled.
Did he? Could you provide a source for that assertion?
ka kite
Steve
william pike
wrote:
<snipped>
>There is a profound difference between the necessity for every Baha'i
>to recognize the legitimate authority of the Universal House of
>Justice to legislate for the community and make decisions as Head of
>the faith, and the idea that any individual can ever legitimately hand
>his or her conscience over to others to do with as they please.
<names from original message removed>
When a person declares their belief, part and parcel of that
declaration is the statement that they recognize the authority of the
Universal House of Justice, The Guardian, 'Abdul Baha, His Holiness
Baha'u'llah... It also states that there are institutions, laws and
ordinances which are to be obeyed by every member of the Baha'i Faith.
IMO When a person becomes a Baha'i they have to accept the covenant
and sign off/acknowledge that they will follow those institutions,
laws and ordinances.
If someone disagrees with any of these ordnances then there are
specified procedures for asking for reconsideration of ordinances and
laws and rules that an individual considers to be in error, however
the original ordinance must be obeyed until such time as the
institutions elect to change them or affirm them.
If an individual elects to abrogate this contract then they have two
choices: to leave formally leave the Baha'i Faith and say they made a
mistake/were misled or they consider themselves smarter than God and
His Manifestation. In either case they remove themselves from active
involvement in the Baha'i Faith.
<snipped>
Pax Terra
O SON OF MY HANDMAID!
Guidance hath ever been given by words, and now it is given by deeds.
Every one must show forth deeds that are pure and holy, for words are
the property of all alike, whereas such deeds as these belong only to
Our loved ones. Strive then with heart and soul to distinguish
yourselves by your deeds. In this wise We counsel you in this holy
and resplendent tablet.
Douglas McAdam
The House of Justice is infallible concerning matters of the Faith. If
they say we should not belong to an organization then I am not going to
join, no matter how I feel for I know my limitations.
Here is one of several quotes about the voice of conscience being
stilled in this day and Baha'u'llah came to Remedy the situation.
Promise of World Peace
Writing of religion as a social force, Baha'u'llah said: "Religion is
the greatest of all means for the establishment of order in the world
and for the peaceful contentment of all that dwell therein." Referring
to the eclipse or corruption of religion, he wrote: "Should the lamp of
religion be obscured, chaos and confusion will ensue, and the lights of
fairness, of justice, of tranquillity and peace cease to shine." In an
enumeration of such consequences the Baha'i writings point out that the
"perversion of human nature, the degradation of human conduct, the
corruption and dissolution of human institutions, reveal themselves,
under such circumstances, in their worst and most revolting aspects.
Human character is debased, confidence is shaken, the nerves of
discipline are relaxed, the voice of human conscience is stilled, the
sense of decency and shame is obscured, conceptions of duty, of
solidarity, of reciprocity and loyalty are distorted, and the very
feeling of peacefulness, of joy and of hope is gradually extinguished."
(14)
_Promise of World Peace (1:3)
regards,
doug
Steve Marshall
>Dear Steve-
>The House of Justice is infallible concerning matters of the Faith.
Is it? Could you provide a source for that assertion?
My understanding is that the House is infallible (mas'um) within its
sphere, and that sphere is defined as legislation (tashrii`), which is
a much narrower spere than "matters of the faith". Also,
"infallibility" has a specialised meaning in the Baha'i Faith. In
particular, the word doesn't mean "propositionally inerrant".
You wrote:
> Baha'u'llah said the voices of conscience has been
> stilled.
..and backed up your statement with:
>Human character is debased, confidence is shaken, the nerves of
>discipline are relaxed, the voice of human conscience is stilled, the
>sense of decency and shame is obscured, conceptions of duty, of
>solidarity, of reciprocity and loyalty are distorted, and the very
>feeling of peacefulness, of joy and of hope is gradually extinguished."
>(14)
>_Promise of World Peace (1:3)
That's not Baha'u'llah saying "the voice of human conscience is
stilled" -- it's the House quoting Shoghi Effendi:
Human character is debased, confidence is shaken, the nerves of
discipline are relaxed, the voice of human conscience is stilled, the
sense of decency and shame is obscured, conceptions of duty, of
solidarity, of reciprocity and loyalty are distorted, and the very
feeling of peacefulness, of joy and of hope is gradually extinguished.
(Shoghi Effendi: World Order of Baha'u'llah, Page: 187)
Moreover, Shoghi Effendi seems to be saying that the stilling of human
conscience is a bad thing.
ka kite
Steve
Suzanne Gerstner
Doug wrote:
>>The House of Justice is infallible concerning matters of the Faith.
Steve wrote:
>
> Is it? Could you provide a source for that assertion?
Dear Steve,
It says in the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha:
"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 Abha 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; "
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Will and Testament, Page: 11)
I don't hear a limit in the above to matters of legislation.
Steve wrote:
>
> My understanding is that the House is infallible (mas'um) within its
> sphere, and that sphere is defined as legislation (tashrii`), which is
> a much narrower spere than "matters of the faith".
Dear Steve,
Here is a passage from the Consititution of the Universal House of Justice
which talks about what the Univesal House of Justice is supposed to do.
According to this document, their "sphere of action" is a lot broader than
you seem to think:
"...There being no successor to Shoghi Effendi as Guardian of the Cause of
God, the Universal House of Justice is the Head of the Faith and its supreme
institution, to which all must turn, and in it rests the ultimate
responsibility for ensuring the unity and progress of the Cause of God.
Further, there devolve upon it duties of directing and coordinating the work
of the Hands of the Cause, of ensuring the continuing discharge of the
functions of protection and propagation vested in the institution, and of
providing for the receipt and disbursement of the Huququ'llah.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[page 5]
Among the powers and duties with which the Universal House of Justice has
been invested are:
To ensure the preservation of the Sacred Texts and to safeguard their
inviolability; to analyze, classify, and coordinate the Writings; and to
defend and protect the Cause of God and emancipate it from the fetters of
repression and persecution;
To advance the interests of the Faith of God; to proclaim, propagate and
teach its Message; to expand and consolidate the institutions of its
Administrative Order; to usher in the World Order of Baha'u'llah; to promote
the attainment of those spiritual qualities which should characterize Baha'i
life individually and collectively; to do its utmost for the realization of
greater cordiality and comity amongst the nations and for the attainment of
universal peace; and to foster that which is conducive to the enlightenment
and betterment of the world:
To enact laws and ordinances not expressly recorded in the Sacred Texts;
to abrogate, according to the changes and requirements of the time, its own
enactments; to deliberate and decide upon all problems which have caused
difference; to elucidate questions that are obscure; to safeguard the
personal rights, freedom and initiative of individuals; and to give
attention to the preservation of human honour, to the development of
countries and the stability of states..."
Are they infallible in their guidance in all of the above? The Will and
Testament of 'ABdu'l-Baha makes it clear that "whatever they decide is of
God." Further, in the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha it states:
"...Beware lest anyone falsely interpret these words, and like unto them
that have broken the Covenant after the Day of Ascension (of Baha'u'llah)
advance a pretext, raise the standard of revolt, wax stubborn and open wide
the door of false interpretation. To none is given the right to put forth
his own opinion or express his particular conviction. All must seek guidance
and turn unto the Center of the Cause and the House of Justice. And he that
turneth unto whatsoever else is indeed in grievous error."
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Will and Testament, Pages: 25-26)
'Abdu'l-Baha is by no mans limiting the "sphere" of the Universal House of
Justice to just legislation. Who are we to do so when the Universal House
of Justice themselves say that isn't true?
Kind regards,
Suzanne
Douglas McAdam
We have beat the subject of infallibilty to death and I'm not about to
reopen it. You think what you will but I feel the House is more
reliable than you or any other Baha'i.
regards
doug
adrian...@clear.net.nz
> > Brendan wrote:
> > >As a human being,
> > >> even more so as I Baha'i, I have a right to dissent,
> > to disagree, and >> remain answerable to my own
> > conscience. >
> > Susan replied:
> > >As a Baha'i you have an obligation to obey Baha'i laws
> > whether you >disagree with them or not.
> >
> > Hi Susan,
> >
> > I don't think it's ever appropriate for an individual to
> > abdicate their conscience, and to do something they
> > believe is absolutely wrong, because they have been told
> > to do so by some other person or body. In fact I
> > thought this principle was established in international
> > law by the Nuremburg Convention.
> >
> >
>
Dear Steve,
Susan appears to be talking about submission to the Will of
God rather than blind obedience. Submitting to the Will of
God involves freeing oneself from "self and passion." This
would undoubtedly include instances where we imagine
ourselves to be right and others wrong.
Baha'is are required to develop (not abdicate) their
conscience. Obedience to God cannot possibly be the same as
abdicating one's conscience. For Baha'is obedience to the
beloved Universal House of Justice is in the context of a
profound and personal relationship with God. Essential
aspects of that relationship are love, trust and respect.
It sounds like a huge leap to be talking about this
profoundly spiritual obedience, renaming it abdication of
ones conscience (or even blind obedience), and then
referring to the Nuremberg Convention which concerns some of
the worst violations of human rights in known history!
The remainder of your post appears to further confuse
submission to God's Will with blind obedience.
I'm sure you know that membership in the Baha'i Faith is
entirely voluntary. If individuals who in good conscience
feel they are unable or unwilling to fulfil the essential
requirements of membership they are free to leave. However
for those who chose, there is the opportunity for a
fulfilling spiritual journey to reconcile oneself to the
Will of God.
Regards, Adrian
Suzanne Gerstner
> Moreover, Shoghi Effendi seems to be saying that the stilling of human
> conscience is a bad thing.
>
Dear Steve,
I haven't been following this discussion, so I could be coming from left
field here, but it certainly is a bad thing to still human conscious. The
thing is, conscience can be made up of many things. It can be formed
through our reading of the Writings, morning and evening, and becoming aware
of what God's will is for us, or it can be made up from human ideals which
have absolutely nothing to do with what we are supposed to be doing. The
reason that we are supposed to deepen in the Writings and bring ourselves to
account each day for our deeds is so that our consciences will be trained to
divine standards:
Here's a passage in a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of
Justice to Susan Maneck talking about this subject:
"Conscience, however, is not an unchangeable absolute. One dictionary
definition, although not covering all the usages of the term, presents the
common understanding of the word "conscience" as "the sense of right and
wrong as regards things for which one is responsible; the faculty or
principle which pronounces upon the moral quality of one's actions or
motives, approving the right and condemning the wrong".
The functioning of one's conscience, then, depends upon one's
understanding of right and wrong; the conscience of one person may be
established upon a disinterested striving after truth and justice, while
that of another may rest on an unthinking predisposition to act in
accordance with that pattern of standards, principles and prohibitions which
is a product of his social environment. Conscience, therefore, can serve
either as a bulwark of an upright character or can represent an accumulation
of prejudices learned from one's forebears or absorbed from a limited social
code..."
I don't know if the above is related to the point you were trying to make or
not, but I think it's an interesting subject just the same. Here's a link
to the letter in case anyone would like to explore what else the Universal
House of Justice had to say about this subject:
http://bahai-library.com/?file=uhj_academic_methodologies
Kind regards,
Suzanne
sma...@jam.rr.com
> I don't think it's ever appropriate for an individual to abdicate
> their conscience, and to do something they believe is absolutely
> wrong, because they have been told to do so by some other person or
> body. In fact I thought this principle was established in
> international law by the Nuremburg Convention.
Dear Steve,
We are not talking about totally abdicating ones conscience. For
instance, if one truly believes that the Universal House of Justice is
asking you to do something which utterly immoral to the extent that
they lose all claim to infallibility then at that point it is time to
examine whether or not the Bab and Baha'u'llah are truly able to
protect and guide the Universal House of Justice as Abdu'l-Baha
promised then it is probably time to re-examine ones belief in
Baha'u'llah as well. Otherwise, to submit ones own conscience to that
of even a Local Spiritual Assembly is usually the most conscientious
thing to do as Abdu'l-Baha pointed out this is the best way to make any
error evident.
> There is a profound difference between the necessity for every Baha'i
> to recognize the legitimate authority of the Universal House of
> Justice to legislate for the community and make decisions as Head of
> the faith, and the idea that any individual can ever legitimately hand
> his or her conscience over to others to do with as they please.
You know what, Steve? I've read all through the Writings and have yet
to see any reference whatsoever to recognizing the 'legitimate
authority' of the Universal House of Justice. Instead, I read phrases
like this: "obedience to its decisions is a bounden and essential duty
and an absolute obligation, and there is no escape for anyone" and
"Whatsoever they decide is of God" and "whoso contendeth with them hath
contended with God" and "That which this body, whether unanimously or
by a majority doth carry, that is verily the truth and the purpose of
God Himself. Whoso doth deviate therefrom is verily of them that love
discord, hath shown forth malice, and turned away from the Lord of the
Covenant" and "To none is given the right to put forth his own opinion
or express his particular conviction. All must seek guidance and turn
unto the Center of the Cause and the House of Justice. And he that
turneth unto whatsoever else is indeed in grievous error" and "Should
any deviate by so much as a needle's point from the decrees of the
Universal House of Justice, or falter in his compliance therewith, then
is he of the outcast and rejected."
But maybe you can show me where it indicates recognizing the House's
legitimate authority is sufficient?
Susan
Steve Marshall
>I don't hear a limit in the above to matters of legislation.
No, that's elsewhere. For example:
The interpretation of the Guardian, functioning within his own sphere,
is as authoritative and binding as the enactments of the International
House of Justice, whose exclusive right and prerogative is to
pronounce upon and deliver the final judgment on such laws and
ordinances as Baha'u'llah has not expressly revealed. Neither can, nor
will ever, infringe upon the sacred and prescribed domain of the
other. Neither will seek to curtail the specific and undoubted
authority with which both have been divinely invested.
(Shoghi Effendi: World Order of Baha'u'llah, Page: 150)
>> My understanding is that the House is infallible (mas'um) within its
>> sphere, and that sphere is defined as legislation (tashrii`), which is
>> a much narrower spere than "matters of the faith".
>
>Here is a passage from the Consititution of the Universal House of Justice
>which talks about what the Univesal House of Justice is supposed to do.
>According to this document, their "sphere of action" is a lot broader than
>you seem to think:
Sorry, Suzanne, I expressed myself in an ambiguous way. I was talking
about the central sphere (or domain, or function) of the House, in
which it is infallible (mas'um). I agree it also has a broader sphere
of action, particularly given the absence of a living Guardian, but I
disagree that it has scriptural backing, within that broader sphere,
to be considered infallible (mas'um).
>"...There being no successor to Shoghi Effendi as Guardian of the Cause of
>God, the Universal House of Justice is the Head of the Faith and its supreme
>institution, to which all must turn, and in it rests the ultimate
>responsibility for ensuring the unity and progress of the Cause of God.
>Further, there devolve upon it duties of directing and coordinating the work
>of the Hands of the Cause, of ensuring the continuing discharge of the
>functions of protection and propagation vested in the institution, and of
>providing for the receipt and disbursement of the Huququ'llah.
Sure, it's head of the Faith, and that's standard head-of-the-Faith
stuff.
The problem with the idea that the House is infallible in all that it
says and does -- particularly if infallibility is taken to mean
anything resembling propositional inerrancy -- is that doing so
effectively makes the House a partner with God. Infallibility is a
quality of God. If something other than God is said to have that
quality in full measure, and with 100% reliability, then a partner
with God has been created. It's the principle of the divine unity.
Here's an article my wife, Alison, wrote on that subject:
http://www.whoisbahaullah.com/Alison/unity.html
Also, Udo Schaefer's article, "Infallible Institutions", is worth a
look:
http://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/abs/bsr09/9B1_schaefer_infallibility.htm
--------------------------------------
Hi Adrian,
> > I don't think it's ever appropriate for an individual to
> > abdicate their conscience, and to do something they
> > believe is absolutely wrong, because they have been told
> > to do so by some other person or body. In fact I
> > thought this principle was established in international
> > law by the Nuremburg Convention.
>
>Baha'is are required to develop (not abdicate) their
>conscience. Obedience to God cannot possibly be the same as
>abdicating one's conscience. For Baha'is obedience to the
>beloved Universal House of Justice is in the context of a
>profound and personal relationship with God. Essential
>aspects of that relationship are love, trust and respect.
>
>It sounds like a huge leap to be talking about this
>profoundly spiritual obedience, renaming it abdication of
>ones conscience (or even blind obedience), and then
>referring to the Nuremberg Convention which concerns some of
>the worst violations of human rights in known history!
If you check back, Adrian, you'll see I was talking about trusting my
conscience when told to do something I felt was ABSOLUTELY wrong. I am
indeed talking about such things as serious violations of human
rights.
Let's try a thought experiment. If you were ordered by an authority
that you trusted implicitly, to pop around and kill me, I suspect that
you would refuse -- and the principle you would follow would indeed be
one established by the Nuremberg Convention. And perhaps your
Hippocratic oath, as well. Now, you may argue that the House would
never order you to kill me, and that's fair enough. The point I'm
making is that you probably would not do something you felt was
absolutely wrong, no matter who ordered you to do it..
Why? I think it's because we know we cannot rely absolutely on
anything in this world. In fact, I think that kind of reliance is
idolatrous. Yes, you've probably observed that I've used the word
"absolutely" again. it was intentional. We're back with the principle
of the divine unity. Only God can be relied on absolutely, and the
House isn't God. It may be the closest thing we have to God. But it's
still not God.
>I'm sure you know that membership in the Baha'i Faith is
>entirely voluntary. If individuals who in good conscience
>feel they are unable or unwilling to fulfil the essential
>requirements of membership they are free to leave.
I believe in unity in diversity, Adrian. I don't have to live up to
anyone's expectations of what it takes to be a true believer. I just
have to be true to myself, and to Baha'u'llah. I believe that
everything else flows from there, including showing the House the
respect and obedience it deserves, in case you're wondering.
Isn't it beautiful that two people so different as you and I can both
be Baha'is?
ka kite
Steve
Suzanne Gerstner
>>I don't hear a limit in the above to matters of legislation.
Steve:
>
> No, that's elsewhere. For example:
>
> The interpretation of the Guardian, functioning within his own sphere,
> is as authoritative and binding as the enactments of the International
> House of Justice, whose exclusive right and prerogative is to
> pronounce upon and deliver the final judgment on such laws and
> ordinances as Baha'u'llah has not expressly revealed. Neither can, nor
> will ever, infringe upon the sacred and prescribed domain of the
> other. Neither will seek to curtail the specific and undoubted
> authority with which both have been divinely invested.
> (Shoghi Effendi: World Order of Baha'u'llah, Page: 150)
Dear Steve,
I don't see anything in the above about a limit of infallibility in other
areas. What I see is an assurance that neither the Guardian nor the
Universal Hosue of Justice will ever infringe on the domain of the other. I
don't see how the above in any way negates the assurance in the Will and
Testament
> The problem with the idea that the House is infallible in all that it
> says and does -- particularly if infallibility is taken to mean
> anything resembling propositional inerrancy -- is that doing so
> effectively makes the House a partner with God.
They have "conferred infallibility", as 'Abdu'l-Baha says:
"Now the members of the House of Justice have not, individually, essential
infallibility; but the body of the House of Justice is under the protection
and unerring guidance of God: this is called conferred infallibility. "
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Some Answered Questions, Pages: 172-173)
That means that whatever they decide is *inspired* by God. It certainly
doesn't in any way mean that they are equal to God. That's two entirely
different things.
Kind regards,
Suzanne
Polychrysos
So we're back to the debate on infallibility again, are we? Well, I
think I might have a fresh perspective here. As far as I'm concerned
we need to accept it and get beyond arguing over it. What does need to
be discussed is the conclusions some people draw from the House's
infallibility. Susan, Suzanne, Adrian, and all the rest of you, tell
me this. Do you believe that because we have an infallible House,
human opinions don't matter any more -- have talking, debating and
thinking about issues on which the House has made an official statement
become obsolete?
For my part, I was just discussing this very issue with my ABM. He
asked me if I recognized that the House was infallible, and I answered
that I did, but that I also reserved my right to my own fallible,
entirely human opinion. I believe the House is infallible, and I
celebrate the fact that we have an infallible institution at the center
of the Faith. But I don't think that gives anyone a license to shut
down free discussion. Susan, you can quote whatever you like, but it
all depends on what consequence you draw from it. If you're saying
infallibility means Steve and I don't have the right to say what we
think and freely express our fallible, human opinions, that's just
nonsense. The purpose of infallibility, and of the Covenant, is to
preserve the unity of the Faith, not to enforce unthinking conformity.
Infallibility is meant to guide the Baha'i community, not to shut
people up. This is a misuse of a sacred principle, and one that I
won't hesitate to condemn. It is precisely because I believe in the
authority of the House and the infallibility of its statements that
this kind of abuse bothers me.
Susan, you point out regarding the House that "whatsoever they decide
is of God." This is fair enough, I agree that the statements of the
House give us insight into the Will of God. But would you argue that
this is the only source of divine guidance we receive? What about our
conscience? Doesn't this also come from God? Or are we only supposed
to use our conscience to discover the true Faith of God, and once we've
found it, switch it off. This is what Ian Semple seems to say in the
talk you approve of so much. He says that natural reason helps us
discover the manifestation, but once we have to decided to give it our
allegiance, we must give it entirely and ignore our conscience. Once
again, I accept the premise, but not the consequence Semple draws. God
wants me to continue using my natural reason at all times, and to deny
my natural reason would be as contrary to the Will of God as ignoring
the statements of the Universal House of Justice. I will not choose
between these sources of truth, but pledge my allegiance to both.
best wishes,
Brendan
th...@cwnet.com
the Universal House of Justice will be infallibly guided to
never overstep whatever limits there is upon its purview.
>From this I can conclude:
1. that there is no problem with discussing what those limits
might be
2. statements from the Universal House of Justive may be our
best evidence about those limits
3. we can confidently follow whatever guidance we get from it
or we need to reconsider our belief in Baha'u'llah. Thanks to
Susan for some very cogent quotations.
Tom
On 15 Aug 2005 at 6:43, Steve Marshall wrote:
Hi Suzanne,
>I don't hear a limit in the above to matters of legislation.
No, that's elsewhere. For example:
The interpretation of the Guardian, functioning within his own sphere,
is as authoritative and binding as the enactments of the International
House of Justice, whose exclusive right and prerogative is to
pronounce upon and deliver the final judgment on such laws and
ordinances as Baha'u'llah has not expressly revealed. Neither can, nor
will ever, infringe upon the sacred and prescribed domain of the
other. Neither will seek to curtail the specific and undoubted
authority with which both have been divinely invested.
(Shoghi Effendi: World Order of Baha'u'llah, Page: 150)
>> My understanding is that the House is infallible (mas'um) within its
>> sphere, and that sphere is defined as legislation (tashrii`), which is
>> a much narrower spere than "matters of the faith".
>
>Here is a passage from the Consititution of the Universal House of Justice
>which talks about what the Univesal House of Justice is supposed to do.
>According to this document, their "sphere of action" is a lot broader than
>you seem to think:
Sorry, Suzanne, I expressed myself in an ambiguous way. I was talking
about the central sphere (or domain, or function) of the House, in
which it is infallible (mas'um). I agree it also has a broader sphere
of action, particularly given the absence of a living Guardian, but I
disagree that it has scriptural backing, within that broader sphere,
to be considered infallible (mas'um).
>"...There being no successor to Shoghi Effendi as Guardian of the Cause of
>God, the Universal House of Justice is the Head of the Faith and its supreme
>institution, to which all must turn, and in it rests the ultimate
>responsibility for ensuring the unity and progress of the Cause of God.
>Further, there devolve upon it duties of directing and coordinating the work
>of the Hands of the Cause, of ensuring the continuing discharge of the
>functions of protection and propagation vested in the institution, and of
>providing for the receipt and disbursement of the Huququ'llah.
Sure, it's head of the Faith, and that's standard head-of-the-Faith
stuff.
The problem with the idea that the House is infallible in all that it
says and does -- particularly if infallibility is taken to mean
anything resembling propositional inerrancy -- is that doing so
--------------------------------------
Hi Adrian,
ka kite
Steve
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.8/71 - Release Date: 8/12/2005
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.8/71 - Release Date: 8/12/2005
Douglas McAdam
My own perspective is very different than what you are offering. And
so I offer it with the idea that we can consider differing opinions,
from which the spark of truth be forthcoming.
In one of the quotes it says there are only three conditions of
existence and they are named as Deity, Prophethood and Servitude.
Obviously we belong in the station of servitude. In another quote it
states we are created to know and worship God. And still another
saying our duty is twofold, to recognize the Manifestation and observe
His commands. We also have a quote of the Master's saying that our
purpose is to acquire virtues and this gives the soul power to command
the ego.
Given these concepts my conclusion is that all our powers, our physical
senses, our intellect, our faith and intuition are for the purpose of
servitude to God and humanity. If we misuse those powers it is because
our lower nature or ego is in command when in reality it is the higher
nature, the soul that is supposed to be in command. Therefor, it is my
conclusion that we must accept what the House of Justice tells us,
without qualification, and use our powers for obedience in terms of
realizing our purpose.
regards,
doug
sma...@jam.rr.com
> all depends on what consequence you draw from it. If you're saying
> infallibility means Steve and I don't have the right to say what we
> think and freely express our fallible, human opinions, that's just
> nonsense.
Dear Brendan,
I don't recall I said much of anything except I didn't know any place
in the Writings which stressed 'recognizing the legitimate authority of
the Universal House of Justice.' Instead I put up all those phrases
from the Writings which stressed obedience and prohibited opposition to
any of the House's decisions. So the question is, what do you think
those passages say? Don't tell me what's nonsense, unless you mean to
say Abdu'l-Baha is talking nonsense. Tell me what those passages mean.
The purpose of infallibility, and of the Covenant, is to
> preserve the unity of the Faith, not to enforce unthinking conformity.
May I direct your attention back to those passages. What do you think
they are saying?
> Infallibility is meant to guide the Baha'i community, not to shut
> people up. This is a misuse of a sacred principle, and one that I
> won't hesitate to condemn.
Good. And when you are done explaining the meaning of the passages I
put up, how about finding some passages to support your own position?
For instance, where in the Writings is the function of infallibility
given the way you suggest above?
It is precisely because I believe in the
> authority of the House and the infallibility of its statements that
> this kind of abuse bothers me.
Where is the abuse, Brendan? I just put up the applicable quotes. Are
you arguing with me, or Abdu'l-Baha?
>
> Susan, you point out regarding the House that "whatsoever they decide
> is of God." This is fair enough, I agree that the statements of the
> House give us insight into the Will of God.
Abdu'l-Baha didn't say that the House gives us 'insight' into the Will
of God, He said that "whatsoever they decide is of God." That's a very
different thing.
But would you argue that
> this is the only source of divine guidance we receive?
Nope. But aside from the Writings it is the only infallible one.
What about our
> conscience? Doesn't this also come from God?
In the sense that all things come from God, including my warts. But I
mostly give my parents direct credit for my conscience which afterwards
was informed by the Teachings.
Or are we only supposed
> to use our conscience to discover the true Faith of God, and once we've
> found it, switch it off.
Actually Baha'u'llah's talks about a pure heart in connection with
searching for truth, not so much a conscience. In fact, I can't think
of many places in the Writings where conscience is mentioned. That
passage from Abdu'l-Baha which the House quotes in its Feb. 8 letter to
me is rather exceptional. But perhaps you can come up with other
references to conscience in the Writings. If so, please share them with
us. But we have to continually evaluate the truth of this Revelation.
Otherwise we might end up following a false prophet. But it doesn't
mean you can pick and choose what you like or don't like from the
Revelation itself. Otherwise there would be no need for revelation
period.
This is what Ian Semple seems to say in the
> talk you approve of so much. He says that natural reason helps us
> discover the manifestation, but once we have to decided to give it our
> allegiance, we must give it entirely and ignore our conscience.
No, that's not what he said. Re-read the section under "Understanding
the requirements of authority" more carefully.
http://bahai-library.com/talks/semple.obedience.html
You may be familiar with the story of Luther and how he stood before
the Holy Roman Emperor and said "Here I stand"? That sometimes has been
taken as a magnificant example of 'freedom of conscience.' But Luther
never claimed to have a free conscience. He said, "My conscience is
captive to the Word of God."
warmest, Susan
Polychrysos
Thanks for the response, and thanks above all for your civilized tone.
But don't you think that you're setting up a false opposition. As with
so many other people, I agree with what you say here, but not with what
you seem to imply. Your words throughout the post are more or less my
own. We must accept what the House tells us, and acknowledge it's
authority as the central institution of the Faith. But other people I
have corresponded with move from this to a suspicion of individual
conscience and opinion -- Douglas Martin seemed to imply this in his
talk in Lowell, Massachusetts. And it is this idea, not with the
things that you have just said, that I take issue. Must loyalty to the
Covenant involve betraying our conscience or doing dirt on our natural
sense of right and wrong? Of course not! I believe we should accept
and affirm the authority of the central institutions of the Faith, but
we should also remain free and critical thinkers. There should be no
thought that is out of bounds, and no idea that cannot be openly
discussed and considered. This is not a contradiction of the Covenant,
but it's fulfillment.
sincerely,
Brendan
Steve Marshall
>areas. What I see is an assurance that neither the Guardian nor the
>Universal Hosue of Justice will ever infringe on the domain of the other. I
>don't see how the above in any way negates the assurance in the Will and
>Testament
Context is everything, Suzanne, check out the paragraph following the
quote I gave. In it, Shoghi Effendi gives a very clear example, both
of the limits to the infallibility of the House, and of the operation
of the two spheres:
"Though the Guardian of the Faith has been made the permanent head of
so august a body he can never, even temporarily, assume the right of
exclusive legislation. He cannot override the decision of the
majority of his fellow-members, but is bound to insist upon a
reconsideration by them of any enactment he conscientiously believes
to conflict with the meaning and to depart from the spirit of
Baha'u'llah's revealed utterances."
(Shoghi Effendi: World Order of Baha'u'llah, Page: 150)
>> The problem with the idea that the House is infallible in all that it
>> says and does -- particularly if infallibility is taken to mean
>> anything resembling propositional inerrancy -- is that doing so
>> effectively makes the House a partner with God.
>
>They have "conferred infallibility", as 'Abdu'l-Baha says:
>
>"Now the members of the House of Justice have not, individually, essential
>infallibility; but the body of the House of Justice is under the protection
>and unerring guidance of God: this is called conferred infallibility. "
> (`Abdu'l-Baha: Some Answered Questions, Pages: 172-173)
>
>That means that whatever they decide is *inspired* by God. It certainly
>doesn't in any way mean that they are equal to God. That's two entirely
>different things.
Indeed they are different things (I wouldn't say entirely different).
"...essential infallibility belongs especially to the supreme
Manifestations, and acquired infallibility is granted to every holy
soul."
(Multiple Authors: Lights of Guidance, Page: 317)
That's why I was pointing out the limits to the infallibility of the
House. And that's why the Guardian "is bound to insist upon a
reconsideration by [the House] of any enactment he conscientiously
believes to conflict with the meaning and to depart from the spirit of
Baha'u'llah's revealed utterances".
The question is, what happens in the absence of a living Guardian? Not
that I'm suggesting we cook up another Guardian -- that line has
ended!
ka kite
Steve
Steve Marshall
>In one of the quotes it says there are only three conditions of
>existence and they are named as Deity, Prophethood and Servitude.
. . .
> it is my
>conclusion that we must accept what the House of Justice tells us,
>without qualification, and use our powers for obedience in terms of
>realizing our purpose.
But that would only work if the House is in the condition of
Prophethood, Doug.
ka kite
Steve
Douglas McAdam
In order for our conscience to be right, the House of Justice would
have to be wrong. I doubt this because I know from experience the
limitations of the human being. It is most difficult to determine if
our inspiration is true divine guidance or ego prompted imagination
because the standard is the Revelation, not mans.
However, after all this discourse I am prompted to ask if you know of
any real cases of an individual having to go against their conscience.
But I do know of individuals disagreeing with and Assembly decision and
obeying it while they made an appeal. However the Assemblies are not
guaranteed infallibility like the House of Justice is.
So are we dealing with speculation or do you know of real cases?
regards,
doug
Albertv
>Hi Suzanne,
>
>
>
>>I don't hear a limit in the above to matters of legislation.
>>
>>
>
>No, that's elsewhere. For example:
>
>The interpretation of the Guardian, functioning within his own sphere,
>is as authoritative and binding as the enactments of the International
>House of Justice, whose exclusive right and prerogative is to
>pronounce upon and deliver the final judgment on such laws and
>ordinances as Baha'u'llah has not expressly revealed. Neither can, nor
>will ever, infringe upon the sacred and prescribed domain of the
>other. Neither will seek to curtail the specific and undoubted
>authority with which both have been divinely invested.
> (Shoghi Effendi: World Order of Baha'u'llah, Page: 150)
>
>
ka kite
Steve
________________________________________________________
THERE IS NO WIGGLE ROOM
(All interpretation belongs to the Universal House of Justice of this
there is no doubt)
"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 Abha 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. (Note the use of the 'word',
"Whatsoever")
Whoso obeyeth him not,
neither obeyeth them,
hath not obeyed God; (No wiggle room here)
whoso rebelleth against him and against them hath rebelled against God;
(Plain? If not "only" the UHJ can decide the meaning. Not you and not me)
. . . . May the wrath, the fierce indignation, the vengeance of God rest
upon him!"
(Abdu'l-Baha, The Will and Testament, p. 11)
"The substance is, that prior to the completion of a thousand years, no
individual
may presume to breathe a word. All must consider themselves to be of
the order
of subjects, submissive and obedient to the commandments of God and the
laws
of the House of Justice. Should any deviate by so much as a needle's
point from
the decrees of the Universal House of Justice, or falter in his
compliance therewith,
then is he of the outcast and rejected."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 68)
The main point I make is that if the question is obscure, it is the UHJ
that can
make it plain and it carries the weight of the "Word of God".
Albert.
Suzanne Gerstner
>
> That's why I was pointing out the limits to the infallibility of the
> House. And that's why the Guardian "is bound to insist upon a
> reconsideration by [the House] of any enactment he conscientiously
> believes to conflict with the meaning and to depart from the spirit of
> Baha'u'llah's revealed utterances".
>
> The question is, what happens in the absence of a living Guardian? Not
> that I'm suggesting we cook up another Guardian -- that line has
> ended!
Dear Steve,
The Universal House of Justice has, of course, written about this subject,
putting it all in its proper perspective:
"...The fact that Shoghi Effendi did not leave a will cannot be adduced as
evidence of his failure to obey Bahá'u'lláh -- rather should we acknowledge
that in his very silence there is a wisdom and a sign of his infallible
guidance. We should ponder deeply the writings that we have, and seek to
understand the multitudinous significances that they contain. Do not forget
that Shoghi Effendi said two things were necessary for a growing
understanding of the World Order of Bahá'u'lláh: The passage of time and the
guidance of the Universal House of Justice.
The infallibility of the Universal House of Justice, operating within its
ordained sphere, has not been made dependent upon the presence in its
membership of the Guardian of the Cause. Although in the realm of
interpretation the Guardian's pronouncements are always binding, in the area
of the Guardian's participation in legislation it is always the decision of
the House itself which must prevail. ...
.. However, quite apart from his function as a member and sacred head for
life of the Universal House of Justice, the Guardian, functioning within his
own sphere, had the right and duty "to define the sphere of the legislative
action" of the Universal House of Justice. In other words, he had the
authority to state whether a matter was or was not already covered by the
Sacred Texts and therefore whether it was within the authority of the
Universal House of Justice to legislate upon it. No other person, apart from
the Guardian, has the right or authority to make such definitions. The
question therefore arises: In the absence of the Guardian, is the Universal
House of Justice in danger of straying outside its proper sphere and thus
falling into error? Here we must remember three things: First, Shoghi
Effendi, during the thirty-six years of his Guardianship, has already made
innumerable such definitions, supplementing those made by 'Abdu'l-Bahá and
by Bahá'u'lláh Himself. As already announced to the friends, a careful study
of the Writings and interpretations on any subject on which the House of
Justice proposes to legislate always precedes its act of legislation.
Second, the Universal House of Justice, itself assured of Divine guidance,
is well aware of the absence of the Guardian and will approach all matters
of legislation only when certain of its sphere of jurisdiction, a sphere
which the Guardian has confidently described as "clearly defined." Third, we
must not forget the Guardian's written statement about these two
institutions: "Neither can, nor will ever, infringe upon the sacred and
prescribed domain of the other."..
..Let it not be imagined that the House of Justice will take any decision
according to its own concepts and opinions. God forbid! The Supreme House of
Justice will take decisions and establish laws through the inspiration and
confirmation of the Holy Spirit, because it is in the safekeeping and under
the shelter and protection of the Ancient Beauty, and obedience to its
decisions is a bounden and essential duty and an absolute obligation, and
there is no escape for anyone.
Say, O People: Verily the Supreme House of Justice is under the wings of
your Lord, the Compassionate, the All-Merciful, that is under His
protection, His care, and His shelter; for He has commanded the firm
believers to obey that blessed, sanctified, and all-subduing body, whose
sovereignty is divinely ordained and of the Kingdom of Heaven and whose laws
are inspired and spiritual.
(The Universal House of Justice, 1966 May 27, Guardianship and the UHJ)
Suzanne Gerstner
> quote I gave. In it, Shoghi Effendi gives a very clear example, both
> of the limits to the infallibility of the House, and of the operation
> of the two spheres:
>
> "Though the Guardian of the Faith has been made the permanent head of
> so august a body he can never, even temporarily, assume the right of
> exclusive legislation. He cannot override the decision of the
> majority of his fellow-members, but is bound to insist upon a
> reconsideration by them of any enactment he conscientiously believes
> to conflict with the meaning and to depart from the spirit of
> Baha'u'llah's revealed utterances."
> (Shoghi Effendi: World Order of Baha'u'llah, Page: 150)
Dear Steve,
We didn't have a Guardian at the same time as the Universal House of
Justice, but if we did, then divine Guidance could just as easily have come
from him to the Universal House of Justice as from divine inspiration. It's
inconsequential as to the means of getting that guidance. We are assured
that it will come, and this belief is the source of our unity.
Personally, I believe that the fact that there is only one Guardian is
because God has willed it so. God is All Powerful. He gave Abraham and
Sarah a child in old age. He created 'Abdu'l-Baha specially to receive the
Revelation of Baha'u'llah. He certainly could have given Shoghi Effendi an
heir if He wanted to. I also am convinced that He knew there would only be
one Guardian. He knows the future in the present. In fact there is no time
in the world of God, so the present and the future are all the same to Him:
"... in the world of God there is no time. Time has sway over creatures but
not over God."
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Some Answered Questions, Page: 156)
"...the essential knowledge of God surrounds, in the same way, the realities
of things, before as well as after their existence, and it does not become
the cause of their existence. It is a perfection of God.
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Some Answered Questions, Page: 138)
There's even a passage in the Kitab-i-Aqdas which gives us a hint that there
may be a time when the Hands of the Cause of God will guide the affairs of
the Faith before the Universal House of Justice comes into existence.
Therefore, I personally believe that whatever is written about future
Guardians is a sort of red-herring in order to protect the one Guardian,
Shoghi Effendi, from jealous people who might otherwise have harmed him, in
the same way that Mirza Yahya was made the nominal head of the Faith in
order to protect Baha'u'llah. This isn't written anywhere, so I don't ask
you to believe it, but to me it's only logical.
So I'm not going to get into a sort of speculation that the above might
potentially mean that 'Abdu'l-Baha was incorrect in His statement that
whatever the Universal House of Justice decides is from God. For my
perspective, the clear and incontrovertible statements of of 'Abdu'l-Baha
take precedence over individual Baha'is might deduce from the above,
whatever one might believe about the Guardianship.
Kind regards,
Suzanne
Polychrysos
Many thanks for your last posting. Again, I agree with almost all of
it. You ask me if I know personally of an individual having to go
against their conscience, and my reply is that no, personally I don't.
No one has asked me to go against my conscience, that's for certain.
When I met with my ABM, he made it clear that he was not in any way
telling me to cease my postings or renounce my convictions. So here,
you could say that I agree with you entirely. But it is because I
agree with you on this point, that I take issue with your first
sentence.
"In order for our conscience to be right, the House of Justice would
have to be wrong."
My problem is that the conflict you imply here is a false one. Our
conscience comes from God, the ordinances of the House of Justice come
from God. Therefore, I don't have to choose, and neither does anyone
else. I obey God in all things, and am true to God in all things.
That doesn't mean ignoring the admonitions of the House of Justice, but
it certainly doesn't mean doing dirt on our conscience, either. Each
of us is accountable to God in our lives, and the task of living by His
commandments is rarely easy, and never simple.
And you are right too, that people can often go astray. It is in our
nature. But I would submit for your consideration that we fall into
error not when we heed our conscience, but when pride leads us to
ignore it. People have done many evil deeds in the name of conscience,
but then the men when crashed planes into the twin towers said they
were inspired by the Koran. We don't revere the sacred scripture of
Mohammed -- or Baha'u'llah for that matter -- any less if some people
choose to malign it through their actions. In the same sense, the
abuse of the principle of conscience does not invalidate its sacred
character.
best wishes,
Brendan
Douglas McAdam
On Aug 16, 2005, at 9:12 AM, Suzanne Gerstner wrote:
> So I'm not going to get into a sort of speculation that the above
> might potentially mean that 'Abdu'l-Baha was incorrect in His
> statement that whatever the Universal House of Justice decides is from
> God. For my perspective, the clear and incontrovertible statements of
> of 'Abdu'l-Baha take precedence over individual Baha'is might deduce
> from the above, whatever one might believe about the Guardianship.
Thank you Suzanne for a well researched and presented reply. God
forbid, I simply cannot imagine anyone studying the Blessed Master and
the Writings and even thinking He would make an error. I guess this is
one of the problems in our culture, we seem to think our own standard
is what we should be weighing the books of God with instead of the
other way around.
How could we possible have unity if the very animating principle,
around and by which all things revolve and are organized, the Covenant,
and the Centre of that Covenant have errors? It is inconceivable to
me.
peace,
doug
Douglas McAdam
On Aug 16, 2005, at 12:19 PM, Polychrysos wrote:
> My problem is that the conflict you imply here is a false one. Our
> conscience comes from God, the ordinances of the House of Justice come
> from God. Therefore, I don't have to choose, and neither does anyone
> else. I obey God in all things, and am true to God in all things.
> That doesn't mean ignoring the admonitions of the House of Justice, but
> it certainly doesn't mean doing dirt on our conscience, either. Each
> of us is accountable to God in our lives, and the task of living by His
> commandments is rarely easy, and never simple.
Dear Brendon-
Inspiration comes from God to both we as individuals and the House of
Justice. The difference is they have been guaranteed infallibility and
we do not have it. Our inspirations are funneled through our human
limitations and thus we need to weigh them against the infallible
advice of the House or the direct access to the Teaching. If all we
had to do was receive inspirations that were infallible then we would
not need a Manifestation of God to come to us and Reveal Knowledge.
How can we tell if our inspirations are true divine guidance or simply
and ego prompted imagination unless we have the infallible Source of
all Knowledge to turn to?
Indeed, the problem we have in the world today is from a majority of
mankind following their own inspirations instead of accepting and
following Baha'u'llah who now is channeling the Holy Spirit to us
through the Divine Baha'i System.
What I do is have an idea (inspiration?) then see if it conforms with
the current Plans of the House of Justice in particular or the Writings
in general, then I pray about it and take what action I am inspired to
take and I realize our life pattern of behavior is one of trial and
error so as to help us learn.
What will you do if your inspiration and conscience tell you something
that conflicts with the Writings or what the House of Justice says?
That is the question we all face and for me it is to follow what the
House says and not my own conscience for I know my present state of
development is anything but infallible. Indeed it takes a lifetime to
undo and replace the materialistic and unrealitic knowledge of my
conscience with the new conscience coming from the Revelation.
regards,
doug
Douglas McAdam
No, not at all Steve. The House is part of the Divine System the
Prophet has set in motion in Creation and He guarantees it
infallibility. It is a Divine System which He has given us for 500,000
years and we best follow His lead through the House, is my conclusion.
regards,
doug
>
sma...@jam.rr.com
> House. And that's why the Guardian "is bound to insist upon a
> reconsideration by [the House] of any enactment he conscientiously
> believes to conflict with the meaning and to depart from the spirit of
> Baha'u'llah's revealed utterances".
Dear Steve,
I think it is pretty clear that here the Guardian was talking about his
role as a member of the Universal House of Justice during their
consulations. If the House truly could make an enactment contrary to
'spirit' of the Teachings it would be meaningless to suggest they have
any infallibility whatsoever. At the very least, infallibility means
that the House's decisions reflect the Will of God.
> The question is, what happens in the absence of a living Guardian?
Abdu'l-Baha never suggested that the House's infallibility was in any
way dependent on the presence of a living Guardian. Indeed most of the
Tablets where He talks about this He makes no mention of a Guardian
whatsoever.
warmest, Susan
sma...@jam.rr.com
> However, after all this discourse I am prompted to ask if you know of
> any real cases of an individual having to go against their conscience.
> But I do know of individuals disagreeing with and Assembly decision and
> obeying it while they made an appeal. However the Assemblies are not
> guaranteed infallibility like the House of Justice is.
>
> So are we dealing with speculation or do you know of real cases?
Dear Doug,
I can give you a real case; my own. Submitting academic publications to
pre-publication Baha'i review is in some ways a violation of academic
ethics. I believe in those ethics so in some ways I have to go against
my conscience when I submit by work for review. But I do it out of
obedience to the House of Justice.
warmest, Susan
sma...@jam.rr.com
> God rather than blind obedience. Submitting to the Will of
> God involves freeing oneself from "self and passion." This
> would undoubtedly include instances where we imagine
> ourselves to be right and others wrong.
Dear Adrian,
That's exactly what I'm saying.
>
> Baha'is are required to develop (not abdicate) their
> conscience. Obedience to God cannot possibly be the same as
> abdicating one's conscience. For Baha'is obedience to the
> beloved Universal House of Justice is in the context of a
> profound and personal relationship with God. Essential
> aspects of that relationship are love, trust and respect.
Correct.
> I'm sure you know that membership in the Baha'i Faith is
> entirely voluntary. If individuals who in good conscience
> feel they are unable or unwilling to fulfil the essential
> requirements of membership they are free to leave.
I would even go further than this. If one truly believes in conscience
that the enactments of the Universal House of Justice are contrary to
the spirit of Teachings the only conscientious course would be to
resign their membership, for obviously Abdu'l-Baha's promises that they
would be under the protection of the Supreme Manifestation have come to
naught.
warmest, Susan
sma...@jam.rr.com
> one Guardian."
Dear Suzanne,
Certainly if there is a God at all, He would have known. That doesn't
mean that Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi knew.
> There's even a passage in the Kitab-i-Aqdas which gives us a hint that there
> may be a time when the Hands of the Cause of God will guide the affairs of
> the Faith before the Universal House of Justice comes into existence.
That is stretching it a bit, IMV. I presume you are speaking of this
passage:
"Endowments dedicated to charity revert to God, the Revealer of Signs.
None hath the right to dispose of them without leave from Him Who is
the Dawning-place of Revelation. After Him, this authority shall pass
to the Aghsán, and after them to the House of Justice--should it be
established in the world by then--that they may use these endowments
for the benefit of the Places which have been exalted in this Cause,
and for whatsoever hath been enjoined upon them by Him Who is the God
of might and power. Otherwise, the endowments shall revert to the
people of Bahá who speak not except by His leave and judge not save in
accordance with what God hath decreed in this Tablet--lo, they are the
champions of victory betwixt heaven and earth--that they may use them
in the manner that hath been laid down in the Book by God, the Mighty,
the Bountiful."
Aqdas:42
That certainly indicates that Baha'u'llah was aware that His line would
eventually end, and by implication there would be no more Guardians.
Now the phrase "people of Baha" certainly applies to the Hands but it
could just as easily applied to any group of faithful Baha'is.
>
> Therefore, I personally believe that whatever is written about future
> Guardians is a sort of red-herring in order to protect the one Guardian,
> Shoghi Effendi, from jealous people who might otherwise have harmed him, in
> the same way that Mirza Yahya was made the nominal head of the Faith in
> order to protect Baha'u'llah. This isn't written anywhere, so I don't ask
> you to believe it, but to me it's only logical.
Huh? That strikes me as a *real* stretch. I would hestitate to suggest
anything in the Writings is 'red herring.' Because God may have known
there would be no more Guardians does not mean He necessarily intended
it to be that way. It was the members of Baha'u'llah's own family, by
virtue of their violation of the Covenant that made it this way.
> So I'm not going to get into a sort of speculation that the above might
> potentially mean that 'Abdu'l-Baha was incorrect in His statement that
> whatever the Universal House of Justice decides is from God.
LOL. You've done a lot of speculation already!
warmest, Susan
sma...@jam.rr.com
> says and does -- particularly if infallibility is taken to mean
> anything resembling propositional inerrancy -- is that doing so
> effectively makes the House a partner with God.
Dear Steve,
Propositional inerrancy misses the point no matter what sphere we are
talking about but I think saying it makes the House 'a partner with
God' is nonsense. Do you really think being propositional inerrancy is
what God is about? And how is the relevant to whether the House's
infallibility is limited to legislation? If it covered authoritative
interpretations as well, it still wouldn't have much to do with
propostional inerrancy.
Infallibility is a
> quality of God.
Where is that from? It is rather meaningless when applied to God isn't
it? Baha'u'llah applies it to Himself in the first instance and to
others secondarily.
If something other than God is said to have that
> quality in full measure, and with 100% reliability, then a partner
> with God has been created. It's the principle of the divine unity.
Hmmm, you must *really* object to this statement from Baha'u'llah then:
Know thou that the term 'Infallibility' hath numerous meanings and
divers stations. In one sense it is applicable to the One Whom God hath
made immune from error. Similarly it is applied to every soul whom God
hath guarded against sin, transgression, rebellion, impiety, disbelief
and the like. However, the Most Great Infallibility is confined to the
One Whose station is immeasurably exalted beyond ordinances or
prohibitions and is sanctified from errors and omissions. Indeed He is
a Light which is not followed by darkness and a Truth not overtaken by
error. Were He to pronounce water to be wine or heaven to be earth or
light to be fire, He speaketh the truth and no doubt would there be
about it; and unto no one is given the right to question His authority
or to say why or wherefore. Whosoever raiseth objections will be
numbered with the froward in the Book of God, the Lord of the worlds.
'Verily He shall not be asked of His doings but all others shall be
asked of their doings.'
(Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 108)
Note Baha'u'llah is talking about Himself here.
> Also, Udo Schaefer's article, "Infallible Institutions", is worth a
> look:
> http://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/abs/bsr09/9B1_schaefer_infallibility.htm
While you are at it you can read my own essay on infallibility:
http://infallibility.susanmaneck.com/
And my response to Schaefer's thesis:
http://www.mail-archive.com/baha...@list.jccc.edu/msg03237.html
Paul Bartlett
> THERE IS NO WIGGLE ROOM
> (All interpretation belongs to the Universal House of Justice of this there
> is no doubt)
Enlighten a non-Baha'i. I thought that with the death of Shoghi
Effendi there is *no* authoritative interpreter. I thought that the
UHJ's *exclusive* domain of action was legislation and *only*
legislation, not interpretation.
--
Paul Bartlett
Douglas McAdam
Yes I know about the review issues for academics but what I was driving
at was why is this an issue if one has not experienced it or know of
any issues like that? It all seems so clear to me and your reaction to
the review issue to me is the proper reaction whereas many friends
would opt to follow their own conscience and create problems for
themselves and others possibly.
With regard to the review process. I can see that the Faith needs to
be careful that authors do not misrepresent it. Many publishers reject
articles because of a variety of reasons even if it goes against the
authors conscience. Doesn't science academia have standards to which
writers must conform?
Doesn't Baha'i review process also include review by ones peers?
regards,
doug
Suzanne Gerstner
>
> Certainly if there is a God at all, He would have known. That doesn't
> mean that Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi knew.
Dear Susan,
I was talking about God. I meant that since, as 'Abdul-Baha says, God knows
the future in the present -- in fact there is no time in the world of God --
He naturally would have knwn that there would only be one Guardian. How
could He not know and still be God? And, since God is all powerful and
"doeth what He willeth", if He had willed it, Shoghi Effendi would have had
a dozen heirs. Logically, it seems clear to me that He did not will it.
Suzanne wrote:
>> There's even a passage in the Kitab-i-Aqdas which gives us a hint that
>> there
>> may be a time when the Hands of the Cause of God will guide the affairs
>> of
>> the Faith before the Universal House of Justice comes into existence.
Susan wrote:
>
> That is stretching it a bit, IMV. I presume you are speaking of this
> passage:
>
> "Endowments dedicated to charity revert to God, the Revealer of Signs.
> None hath the right to dispose of them without leave from Him Who is
> the Dawning-place of Revelation. After Him, this authority shall pass
> to the Aghsán, and after them to the House of Justice--should it be
> established in the world by then--that they may use these endowments
> for the benefit of the Places which have been exalted in this Cause,
> and for whatsoever hath been enjoined upon them by Him Who is the God
> of might and power. Otherwise, the endowments shall revert to the
> people of Bahá who speak not except by His leave and judge not save in
> accordance with what God hath decreed in this Tablet--lo, they are the
> champions of victory betwixt heaven and earth--that they may use them
> in the manner that hath been laid down in the Book by God, the Mighty,
> the Bountiful."
> Aqdas:42
Yes. A letter of the Universal House of Justice says: " "Future Guardians
are clearly envisaged and referred to in the Writings, but there is nowhere
any promise or guarantee that the line of Guardians would endure forever; on
the contrary there are clear indications that the line could be broken..."
It then cites the passage you quoted above and says:
"The passing of Shoghi Effendi in 1957 precipitated the very situation
provided for in this passage, in that the line of Aghsan ended before the
House of Justice had been elected."
(The Universal House of Justice, Messages 1963 to 1986, p. 158)
So, you see it wasn't just my own personal speculation. The Universal House
of Justice also "speculated" that this was what that passage indicated.
I read this with a bit more elaboration in The Child of the Covenant by Adib
Taherzadeh:
"In the verse cited above Bahá'u'lláh states: 'After Him [Bahá'u'lláh] the
decision rests with the Aghsan (Branches).' The word Aghsan, being plural,
indicates that them will be more than one Branch; in this case, two:
'Abdu'l-Bahá, the Most Great Branch, and Shoghi Effendi, the Chosen Branch.
This foreshadows a break in the line of the Aghsan as Bahá'u'lláh states,
'and after them with the House of Justice -- should it be established in the
world by then'. By 'the House of Justice' is meant the Universal House of
Justice, for Bahá'u'lláh refers to it as a world institution.
When Shoghi Effendi passed away there was no House of Justice. So it can be
seen that the above passage in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas was prophetic, in that a
period of more than five years separated the passing of Shoghi Effendi from
the establishment of the Universal House of Justice, and the Hands of the
Cause during this period -- 'the people of Baha who speak not without His
leave' -- fulfilled the last provision stated in the above text.
We can see, therefore, that the break in the line of Guardians, the
custodianship of the Faith by the Hands of the Cause, and the subsequent
establishment of the Universal House of Justice were vital developments that
were known to Bahá'u'lláh and revealed by Him. The statement, 'The people of
Baha who speak not without His leave' is precisely applicable to the Hands
of the Cause, because during the 362 period of the custodianship the Hands
of the Cause faithfully carried out the instructions of the Guardian. They
did not introduce any innovations in the Faith, nor did they express their
own opinions or exert undue influence on the future development of the
Bahá'í community throughout the world.
As we meditate on the above passage from the Kitáb-i-Aqdas it becomes clear
that the break in the line of the Guardians after Shoghi Effendi was not an
unforeseen event. Having foreknowledge of this act, Bahá'u'lláh revealed the
sequence of events leading to the establishment of the House of Justice. "
(Adib Taherzadeh, The Child of the Covenant, p. 361)
I gleaned the other points I mentioned from things I read in this book or
from talks of Adib Taherzadeh, but I don't have time to research today to
find them, since my daughter is getting married next week and I have a lot
to do.
Kind regards,
Suzanne
Kent Johnson
act on various interpretations and others oppose the action or in some way a
conflict is caused by differing interpretations, the Universal House of
Justice will legislate on the correct action. The Writings will continue to
speak for themselves.
--Kent
"Paul Bartlett" <bart...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.63.05...@panix2.panix.com...
sma...@jam.rr.com
> there is no doubt)
Huh? The Universal House of Justice itself indicates just the opposite:
"Already in "The Dispensation of Bahá'u'lláh" Shoghi Effendi has
shown, beyond any doubt, that the function of making authoritative
interpretations of the Teachings is confined solely and exclusively to
the Guardian. Neither the Universal House of Justice, nor any other
institution, person or group of persons can assume that function. That
the Universal House of Justice will never infringe on the functions
reserved to the Guardian is shown, not only by its own words and
actions, but by Shoghi Effendi's statement in that same document:
"Neither can, nor will ever, infringe upon the sacred and prescribed
domain of the other." It is guaranteed by the fact that the Universal
House of Justice as well as the Guardian are both "under the care and
protection of the Abha Beauty, under the shelter and unerring guidance
of His Holiness, the Exalted One".
In its letter of 9 March 1965, the House of Justice has stated:
"There is a profound difference between the interpretations of the
Guardian and the elucidations of the House of Justice in exercise of
its function to deliberate upon all problems which have caused
difference, questions that are obscure, and matters that are not
expressly recorded in the Book.'" The friends will come to understand
what this difference is by observing how the House of Justice functions
and by turning to it for explanations when necessary."
http://bahai-library.com/compilations/issues.scholarship.html
Steve Marshall
>Infallibility is a quality of God.
>
>Where is that from? It is rather meaningless when applied to God isn't
>it?
Yes, it is rather meaningless, in the sense that God is
transcendent...
http://www.whoisbahaullah.com/Alison/unity.html#HD3
..and that no description of God meets the mark. But that has little
to do with the point I'm making. Or perhaps I fail to understand your
objection.
>Hmmm, you must *really* object to this statement from Baha'u'llah then:
No, not at all. As I've said, my argument rests on the principle of
the divine unity -- in which the manifestation should be considered
the same as God:
"The core concepts of the divine unity that Baha'u'llah identifies
are:
1. That God transcends creation.
2. That the manifestation should be considered the same as God.
3. That there is no distinction between the manifestations.
4. That every created thing is a sign of God.
These four concepts are linked logically to each other. Together, they
explain that there is one transcendent God and the manifestation is
God's representative in creation. They also define the relationships
between God, the manifestation and the rest of creation."
http://www.whoisbahaullah.com/Alison/unity.html#HD2
ka kite
Steve
Randy Burns
"Steve Marshall" <asm...@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:trfuf1107hqbv4kjg...@4ax.com...
> Sorry, Suzanne, I expressed myself in an ambiguous way. I was talking
> about the central sphere (or domain, or function) of the House, in
> which it is infallible (mas'um). I agree it also has a broader sphere
> of action, particularly given the absence of a living Guardian, but I
> disagree that it has scriptural backing, within that broader sphere,
> to be considered infallible (mas'um).
Hi Steve, I would argue here that it doesn't really matter what you call the
House of Justice when acting as Head of the Faith in these matters.
Infallibility at some point simply becomes the accepted term but begins to
mean something different when applied to the House as Chief Executive of the
Faith and when applied to it's duties as Legislative Branch. In other
words, when legislating they have infallibility conferred by Baha'u'llah and
when acting as Head of the Faith they have infallibility conferred by the
believers.
> The problem with the idea that the House is infallible in all that it
> says and does -- particularly if infallibility is taken to mean
> anything resembling propositional inerrancy -- is that doing so
> effectively makes the House a partner with God. Infallibility is a
> quality of God. If something other than God is said to have that
> quality in full measure, and with 100% reliability, then a partner
> with God has been created. It's the principle of the divine unity.
I think the point to be remembered here is that it isn't the UHJ that is
claiming to be infallible when acting as executive branch but the believers
themselves, so it would be the believers who are joining partners with God
and not the UHJ. I don't think that anything in the official pronouncements
of the House would indicate that this is their view.
With sincere Baha'i love, Randy
Suzanne Gerstner
>> Therefore, I personally believe that whatever is written about future
>> Guardians is a sort of red-herring in order to protect the one Guardian,
>> Shoghi Effendi, from jealous people who might otherwise have harmed him,
>> in
>> the same way that Mirza Yahya was made the nominal head of the Faith in
>> order to protect Baha'u'llah. This isn't written anywhere, so I don't
>> ask
>> you to believe it, but to me it's only logical.
Susan wrote:
>
> Huh? That strikes me as a *real* stretch. I would hestitate to suggest
> anything in the Writings is 'red herring.' Because God may have known
> there would be no more Guardians does not mean He necessarily intended
> it to be that way. It was the members of Baha'u'llah's own family, by
> virtue of their violation of the Covenant that made it this way.
Dear Susan,
The phrase "red herring" may not be the best but what I meant was that it
was a sort of diversion to create safety from the enemies of the Faith for
the Centre of the Covenant.
'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi both called Mirza Yaha "the nominal head of
the Babi community". Why did we need a "figurehead" or "nominal head"? Why
not a true leader? Because the Babi Community already had a true leader,
and it was the brother of the "nominal" leader. Here's what Mr. Taherzadeh
said about this. I know his books are not authoritative, but they are
interesting and informative, and I believe they are based on sound
knowledge:
"The appointment by the Báb of Mirza Yahya as the leader of the Bábí
community took place on the advice of Bahá'u'lláh. 'Abdu'l-Bahá states that
some time after the death of Muhammad Shah it became evident that
Bahá'u'lláh's fame had spread far and wide in Persia and it was essential to
divert public attention away from His person. To achieve this aim
Bahá'u'lláh advised the Báb to appoint Mirza Yahya as His nominee. This
advice was communicated through the medium of a trusted believer, Mulla
'Abdu'l-Karim of Qazvin, otherwise known as Mirza Ahmad, who was able to
make contact with the Báb. The appointment of Mirza Yahya, who was then in
his late teens, had the obvious advantage of enabling Bahá'u'lláh to direct
the affairs of the community behind the scenes through the instrumentality
of Mirza Yahya, who, in reality, was merely the ostensible head until the
advent of 'Him Whom God shall make manifest'.
The Bábí community was not informed of the reasons behind this appointment.
It must have come as a surprise to many when they realized that the
appointee of the Báb was a youth in his teens and those who knew his
personality were aware of his shallowness and vanity..."
(Adib Taherzadeh, The Child of the Covenant, p. 92)
I will write about the protection of Shoghi Effendi in another posting or
this will become too long.
Kind regards,
Suzanne
sma...@jam.rr.com
>
> No, not at all. As I've said, my argument rests on the principle of
> the divine unity -- in which the manifestation should be considered
> the same as God:
Dear Steve,
Well, there is nothing in the Writings to suggest that the Most Great
Infallibility involves propositional inerrancy while the other forms do
not. As I said, I think framing infallibility in terns of propositional
inerrancy misses the point, anyhow. Infallibility has to do with
whether or not one is aligned to the Will of God. That is why it to say
that the Universal House of Justice may make enactments contrary to the
Teachings would not make any sense. In my view the big difference
between the Most Great Infallibility and other forms, besides the
obvious fact that one is instrinsic and the other acquired, is that
while the latter is in accord with God's Will the former is God's Will
itself.
warmest, Susan
Suzanne Gerstner
>> Therefore, I personally believe that whatever is written about future
>> Guardians is a sort of red-herring in order to protect the one Guardian,
>> Shoghi Effendi, from jealous people who might otherwise have harmed him,
>> in
>> the same way that Mirza Yahya was made the nominal head of the Faith in
>> order to protect Baha'u'llah. This isn't written anywhere, so I don't
>> ask
>> you to believe it, but to me it's only logical.
Susan wrote:
>
> Huh? That strikes me as a *real* stretch. I would hestitate to suggest
> anything in the Writings is 'red herring.' Because God may have known
> there would be no more Guardians does not mean He necessarily intended
> it to be that way. It was the members of Baha'u'llah's own family, by
> virtue of their violation of the Covenant that made it this way.
Dear Susan,
As I said before, I don't really have the time to go through The Child of
the Covenant and The Covenant by Adib Taherzadeh to see if the theory he
spoke about once at a summer school is in there, but I will tell you what I
remember. The Master's life was in danger during the Writing of the Will.
This can be seen in a number of passages there, like this one:
"O dearly beloved friends! I am now in very great danger and the hope of
even an hour's life is lost to me. I am thus constrained to write these
lines for the protection of the Cause of God, the preservation of His Law,
the safeguarding of His Word and the safety of His Teachings. By the
Ancient Beauty! This wronged one hath in no wise borne nor doth he bear a
grudge against any one; towards none doth he entertain any ill-feeling and
uttereth no word save for the good of the world. My supreme obligation,
however, of necessity, prompteth me to guard and preserve the Cause of
God..."
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Will and Testament, Pages: 19-20)
Enemies had tried to kill both Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha, and
'Abdu'l-Baha was well aware that these same vicious enemies would still be
there in the time of the Guardian, and would not hesitate to try to kill him
too. He did whatever it took to protect him. For instance, He made some
extremely firm warnings in His Will and Testament in order to protect Shoghi
Effendi:
"...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. May the wrath,
the fierce indignation, the vengeance of God rest upon him! ..."
Here is a passage in which you can see that the Hands of the Cause of God
were told by 'Abdu'l-Baha they must obey and be submissive to everything the
Guardian said:
"It is incumbent upon the members of the House of Justice, upon all the
Aghsan, the Afnan, the Hands of the Cause of God to show their obedience,
submissiveness and subordination unto the Guardian of the Cause of God, to
turn unto him and be lowly before him. He that opposeth him hath opposed
the True One..."
So, even though they were not allowed to deviate a hair's breadth from
anything the Guardian said, they were given the task to vote on whether they
agreed or not with his choice of a successor:
"The Hands of the Cause of God must elect from their own number nine
persons that shall at all times be occupied in the important services in the
work of the Guardian of the Cause of God. The election of these nine must
be carried either unanimously or by majority from the company of the Hands
of the Cause of God and these, whether unanimously or by a majority vote,
must give their assent to the choice of the one whom the Guardian of the
Cause of God hath chosen as his successor. This assent must be given in such
wise as the assenting and dissenting voices may not be distinguished (i.e.,
secret ballot)."
If they voted against the Guardian's choice of a successor, they would be
voting against God, as it said in the above. They could not do this and be
true to what 'Abdu'l-Baha said in the preceding paragraphs -- without
opposing God. On the other hand, the above clause was the perfect safeguard
for what did happen after the passing of Shoghi Effendi when Mason Remey
rose up to violate the Covenant and claimed to be the second Guardian. The
Hands of the Cause of God were following the instructions of 'Abdu'l-Baha by
putting it to a vote, and they didn't agree.
The fact that it was foreseen by 'Abdu'l-Baha that a Hand of the Cause of
God could rise up to oppose the Covenant is in the next paragraph:
O friends! The Hands of the Cause of God must be nominated and
appointed by the Guardian of the Cause of God. All must be under his shadow
and obey his command. Should any, within or without the company of the
Hands of the Cause of God disobey and seek division, the wrath of God and
His vengeance will be upon him, for he will have caused a breach in the true
Faith of God.
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Will and Testament, Pages: 11-13)
So all of this was foreshadowed in the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha,
and also in that passage I mentioned before in the Kitab-i-Aqdas it was
foreshadowed that the line of Guardians could be terminated before the
election of the Universal House of Justice. In fact, in Mr. Taherzadeh's
opinion, (from what I recall) it would have been an impossibility for there
to be a second Guardian, because the Hands of the Cause of God could not
ever vote on a true successor of Shoghi Effendi. It would have been an
impossibility for them to oppose him. He had worked this out for himself
from his reading of the Will and Testament during the lifetime of Shoghi
Effendi. The question, then is why there was talk of future guardians.
Even Shoghi Effendi spoke of future guardians when he was three years from
his own death, when he knew that he had no heirs and all of the members of
'Abdu'l-Baha's family had broken the Covenant, so there was no way to
fulfill the requirements set forth by 'Abdu'l-Baha in His Will and
Testament.
The question is why. It was Mr. Taherzadeh's idea that it was a protection
for Shoghi Effendi that other Guardians were mentioned, because his life
could have been in grave danger from the sort of enemies which imperiled His
own life if they had realised that he would be the only Guardian. Why I
don't know.
Anyway, sorry this is long talk that I heard a decade ago. I will have to
say that his thinking was clearly laid out and much of it was verifiable in
the Writings.
Kind regards,
Suzanne
adrian...@clear.net.nz
>Do you believe that because we have an infallible House,
>human opinions don't matter any more -- have talking,
debating and
>thinking about issues on which the House has made an
official statement
>become obsolete?
Dear Brendan, That would be an extreme position and I have
not seen anyone on this group propose that this be the case.
>I believe the House is infallible, and I
>celebrate the fact that we have an infallible institution
at the center
>of the Faith. But I don't think that gives anyone a license
to shut
>down free discussion.
I don't see people trying to shut down free discussion,
though I'm not sure what you mean by free. If freedom means
anyone can say anything at any time they please then this
would be a fairly good recipe for anarchy.
We are part of a moderated discussion group with
considerable freedom, which most people here use
responsibly. You have posted your thoughts on one of Peter
Khan's talks as well as what you regard as a number of
shortcomings with teachings of the Bahá’í Faith. This
has generated considerable discussion. We have all had the
freedom to put forward our respective views.
Admittedly I have questioned the wisdom of you posting on
Peter Khan but have used statements from the Universal House
of Justice to support this. Similarly I see most people here
using the writings to support their views. What I see you
doing is relying mostly on your own reasoning power to
support your position. The problem with reason alone as I'm
sure you will appreciate is that it is flawed and imperfect
as a means of arriving at the truth. If it were otherwise
then all the philosophers would have made much more progress
than they have to date. Their views wouldn't be so
fundamentally divergent.
The difficulty is that when a person is very good at
reasoning as you are, it becomes hard to see those occasions
when logic has failed us and we have fallen into error. One
sure sign that our flawed reasoning has blinded us in this
particular way is when our conclusions contradict what the
authorative writings say.
>Infallibility is meant to guide the Baha'i community, not
to shut
>people up. This is a misuse of a sacred principle, and one
that I
>won't hesitate to condemn. It is precisely because I
believe in the
>authority of the House and the infallibility of its
statements that
>this kind of abuse bothers me.
One of the reasons your posts have received so much
attention is that they appear to contradict basic teachings.
Therefore the responses may have been less favourable than
you would have hoped. However it would be quite naive to
expect otherwise. To label this response as a kind of abuse
and an attempt to shut you up is simply not true. Ironically
this has been a consequence of other people’s freedom of
speech that you feel this way. Are you advocating that
others in the group have exceeded the bounds of moderation?
Have they exercised too much freedom?
Regards, Adrian
Douglas McAdam
On Aug 17, 2005, at 9:56 AM, Steve Marshall wrote:
> These four concepts are linked logically to each other. Together, they
> explain that there is one transcendent God and the manifestation is
> God's representative in creation. They also define the relationships
> between God, the manifestation and the rest of creation."
So then Steve what about this quote-
"Know that the conditions of existence are limited to the conditions of
servitude, Prophethood, and of Deity." BWF p.328
As I understand it these are separate realms, kingdoms or worlds and
one cannot exceed that worlds limitations. There are other quotes,
which I don't have at the moment, but which I'm sure you will recall,
which state that as far removed as we are from the Manifestation He is
further removed from God.
regards,
doug
Douglas McAdam
On Aug 18, 2005, at 8:18 PM, sma...@jam.rr.com wrote:
> In my view the big difference
> between the Most Great Infallibility and other forms, besides the
> obvious fact that one is instrinsic and the other acquired, is that
> while the latter is in accord with God's Will the former is God's Will
> itself.
Hi Susan-
So then is it your conclusion that the Most Great Infallibility cannot
err?
regards,
doug
Polychrysos
My statement about human opinions not mattering wasn't in reference to
anything you've said. I appreciate your manner of argument and
wouldn't want to imply that. But it has certainly been suggested to me
-- and I will find specific spots if you want -- that asking after
fallible opinions is useless when we have an infallible source.
Richard Gravelly has come very close to this on another thread in
refusing to answer my question about a "source of truth" because he
cannot find that specific phrase on Ocean. He says that "God has
already spoken for (us)" and that "the quotations reveal the answers to
all questions." That, more or less, is the attitude I'm talking about.
As for shutting people up, I'm not saying that you ever tried to do
that, but you have said things, perhaps without intending, which seemed
to imply that you might like to. When I posted the following
sentences, you said it made you "uncomfortable."
"... I have the right as a believer to speak for myself. I have the
right to dissent and present my own perspective. ..."
The statement that I have the right to dissent and present my own
perspective made you "uncomfortable?" What am I supposed to conclude
from this? You also said you "considered the wisdom" of my paper even
being discussed online at all. You suggested that the application of
liberal democratic values of individual rights and free expression
would be "problematic" when applied to the Faith. And your current
statements aren't any more encouraging. You called a situation where
"anyone can say anything at any time they please" anarchy. Isn't the
freedom to say what we want what we have here? Certain means of
expression -- obscenity, hate speech, personal attacks -- these need to
be forbidden, but there is no idea that cannot be articulated here as
long as it is articulated with courtesy. And perhaps you would say you
do approve of the freedom we have on SRB? Then why question the wisdom
of my paper being discussed here? Why say you are "uncomfortable" with
my plain statement that I have the right to put forth my own point of
view. Freedom of expression means nothing if it is only the freedom to
express ideas that you personally are "comfortable" with.
And no, no one has ever tried to censor me. It's a tribute to how well
this site works that I've been able to articulate my highly unpopular
ideas. But would you allow me to post my articles if you ran the site?
What if I said something that made you uncomfortable, or caused you to
"consider the wisdom" of allowing me to post? What if you decided that
"the application of Western liberal-democratic processes" to this site
was "problematic?" Where would I be then?
So please spare me the suggestion that I object to people responding to
me. It should be obvious that I enjoy all the responses that I get --
yours among the first. The others on this site have not "exceeded the
bounds of moderation" in criticising my views, but you have crossed the
line if -- and if you have not done this you need to take greater care
in your expression -- if you have ever suggested I should not present
my opinons here.
sincerely,
Brendan
Steve Marshall
>> These four concepts are linked logically to each other. Together, they
>> explain that there is one transcendent God and the manifestation is
>> God's representative in creation. They also define the relationships
>> between God, the manifestation and the rest of creation."
>
>So then Steve what about this quote-
>"Know that the conditions of existence are limited to the conditions of
>servitude, Prophethood, and of Deity." BWF p.328
Yes, it fits right in there:
God = Deity
manifestation = prophethood
the rest of creation = servitude.
The House is in a state of servitude, like you and I.
ka kite
Steve
Douglas McAdam
said below and you did not write giving the three conditions, I did.
Secondly you are twisting things around I feel when you said the
following-
> The House is in a state of servitude, like you and I.
There are not like you and I. They are infallible and we are not.
There is absolutely no comparison in my understanding of the Writings.
Their station of servitude is much higher than all of us and the sooner
we realize and act accordingly the better off the world will be.
regards,
doug
Randy Burns
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1124235447....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Steve,
>
> I think it is pretty clear that here the Guardian was talking about his
> role as a member of the Universal House of Justice during their
> consulations. If the House truly could make an enactment contrary to
> 'spirit' of the Teachings it would be meaningless to suggest they have
> any infallibility whatsoever. At the very least, infallibility means
> that the House's decisions reflect the Will of God.
I think it is important to point out our understanding of what the "Will of
God" is in this context. From what I can understand the "Will of God" is
that man be allowed to carry on an ever advancing civilization. Within this
context, the Universal House of Justice could carry out a world war, preside
over executions of wrong-doers, and do all the others things that normal
every-day civilian Governments do and it would still be reflecting the Will
of God.
To say that the House of Justice is reflecting the Will of God would not
indicate that every decision it has made has been based on perfect
information and would reflect those facts perfectly, or that every person
involved in such a decisoin had been treated with perfect fairness and
justice. The House of Justice must do what it thinks is right in the
broadest way possible
> > The question is, what happens in the absence of a living Guardian?
>
> Abdu'l-Baha never suggested that the House's infallibility was in any
> way dependent on the presence of a living Guardian. Indeed most of the
> Tablets where He talks about this He makes no mention of a Guardian
> whatsoever.
I'm not sure that we can say that Abdu'l-Baha never suggested this. In the
W&T on page 14, Abdu'l-Baha writes:
"Should any of the members [of the UHJ] commit a sin, injurious to the
common weal, the guardian of the Cause of God hath at his own discretion the
right to expel him..."
Another passage just earlier on the same page indicates:
"It's [the UHJ's} members must be manifestations of the fear of God and
daysprings of knowledge and understanding, must be steadfast in God's faith
and the well-wishers of all mankind."
Now the important thing to keep in mind is that we are talking about an
institution that might last for thousands of years, and within that context
we must ask ourselves the question that if the some of the UHJ members to
not match or meet up with Abdu'l-Baha's qualifying statements then what are
the consequences in terms of the promises made in regard to this
institution? Especially in the absence of a living Guardian? Are the
consequences important, are the decisions of one House of Justice the same
as any other over the vast expanse of time irregardless of the
qualifications of the members, irregardless of an absence of a living
Guardian?
Cheers, Randy
Suzanne Gerstner
> Now the important thing to keep in mind is that we are talking about an
> institution that might last for thousands of years, and within that
> context
> we must ask ourselves the question that if the some of the UHJ members to
> not match or meet up with Abdu'l-Baha's qualifying statements then what
> are
> the consequences in terms of the promises made in regard to this
> institution? Especially in the absence of a living Guardian?
Dear Randy,
It doesn't say in that passage that "only the Guardian can expel a House
Member." Apparently the Universal House of Justice can do this too, since
this same passage you quote is mentioned in the Constitution of the
Universal House of Justice and is a reason for expulsion of a Member. This
is from their Constitution:
2. Vacancies in Membership
A vacancy in the membership of the Universal House of Justice will occur
upon the death of a member or in the following cases:
a) Should any member of the Universal House of Justice commit a sin
injurious to the common weal, he may be dismissed from membership by the
Universal House of Justice.
b) The Universal House of Justice may at its discretion declare a vacancy
with respect to any member who in its judgement is unable to fulfil the
functions of membership.
c) A member may relinquish his membership on the Universal House of Justice
only with the approval of the Universal House of Justice.
Kind regards,
Suzanne
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.12/75 - Release Date: 8/17/2005
sma...@jam.rr.com
> God" is in this context. From what I can understand the "Will of God" is
> that man be allowed to carry on an ever advancing civilization. Within this
> context, the Universal House of Justice could carry out a world war, preside
> over executions of wrong-doers, and do all the others things that normal
> every-day civilian Governments do and it would still be reflecting the Will
> of God.
Dear Randy,
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but Baha'u'llah does not
say we have been 'allowed' to carry on an ever-advancing civilization,
He says we have been *created* to carry out an ever-advancing
civilzation. The term for civilization here is 'salih-i alam' literally
'the reparation of the world.' But no, I don't think the Universal
House of Justice can wage war or preside over-executions. The Will and
Testament says the House of Justice makes the laws and the *government*
enforces them. That gives them legislative, but not executive
authority.
>
> To say that the House of Justice is reflecting the Will of God would not
> indicate that every decision it has made has been based on perfect
> information and would reflect those facts perfectly, or that every person
> involved in such a decisoin had been treated with perfect fairness and
> justice.
The Universal House of Justice does have to rely on the information it
receives, however reflecting the Will of God does mean that they will
not act contrary to principle, IMV.
> > Abdu'l-Baha never suggested that the House's infallibility was in any
> > way dependent on the presence of a living Guardian. Indeed most of the
> > Tablets where He talks about this He makes no mention of a Guardian
> > whatsoever.
>
> I'm not sure that we can say that Abdu'l-Baha never suggested this. In the
> W&T on page 14, Abdu'l-Baha writes:
>
> "Should any of the members [of the UHJ] commit a sin, injurious to the
> common weal, the guardian of the Cause of God hath at his own discretion the
> right to expel him..."
I'm not saying that the individual members of the Universal House of
Justice were incorruptible. Infallibility applies only to the
istitution.
>
> Another passage just earlier on the same page indicates:
>
> "It's [the UHJ's} members must be manifestations of the fear of God and
> daysprings of knowledge and understanding, must be steadfast in God's faith
> and the well-wishers of all mankind."
And how would the presence of a living Guardian change this?
>
> Now the important thing to keep in mind is that we are talking about an
> institution that might last for thousands of years, and within that context
> we must ask ourselves the question that if the some of the UHJ members to
> not match or meet up with Abdu'l-Baha's qualifying statements then what are
> the consequences in terms of the promises made in regard to this
> institution?
The reference to House members manifesting the fear of God, etc. is not
a 'qualifying statement' it is an admonition. The infallibility of the
Universal House of Justice does not depend on the perfection of its
membership. However, if one does commit a sin detrimental to the common
weal, the Universal House of Justice has the constitutional authority
to expell them.
Especially in the absence of a living Guardian? Are the
> consequences important, are the decisions of one House of Justice the same
> as any other over the vast expanse of time
Any other what?
warmest, Susan
sma...@jam.rr.com
> So, even though they were not allowed to deviate a hair's breadth from
> anything the Guardian said, they were given the task to vote on whether they
> agreed or not with his choice of a successor:
Dear Suzanne,
I think you are misunderstanding this clause of the Will and Testament.
The Guardian made it clear that the Hands did not have the right to
overrule his appointment. The voting by the Hands was not intended to
express agreement with the Guardian's choice so much as it was to
ratify the fact that a choice had indeed been made. In other words, the
majority of Hands had to agree that the Guardian had indeed appointed
such-and-such a person as his successor, not that they thought it was a
good choice.
> O friends! The Hands of the Cause of God must be nominated and
> appointed by the Guardian of the Cause of God. All must be under his shadow
> and obey his command. Should any, within or without the company of the
> Hands of the Cause of God disobey and seek division, the wrath of God and
> His vengeance will be upon him, for he will have caused a breach in the true
> Faith of God.
> (`Abdu'l-Baha: Will and Testament, Pages: 11-13)
>
> So all of this was foreshadowed in the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha,
> and also in that passage I mentioned before in the Kitab-i-Aqdas it was
> foreshadowed that the line of Guardians could be terminated before the
> election of the Universal House of Justice.
Do you mean by this that it was foreshadowing what Mason Remey did? I
don't think so or Abdu'l-Baha would not named obedience to the Guardian
as the grounds for expulsion. Since there was no Guardian when Mason
Remey made his claim the Remeyites could (and did) assert that this
passage didn't apply. It does, however, indicate that the Hands had the
legal right to expell even if the Guardian had relegated that right to
himself for the time being.
In fact, in Mr. Taherzadeh's
> opinion, (from what I recall) it would have been an impossibility for there
> to be a second Guardian, because the Hands of the Cause of God could not
> ever vote on a true successor of Shoghi Effendi. It would have been an
> impossibility for them to oppose him.
I'm afraid I would have to differ with Mr. Taherzadeh. He's reading too
much back into the text. Apparently it didn't occur to him that there
might be a situation where the Hands would have to certify whether an
appointment had indeed been made and that they might not all agree.
The question, then is why there was talk of future guardians.
> Even Shoghi Effendi spoke of future guardians when he was three years from
> his own death,
In pilgrim's notes he referred to them even up until a year before his
death.
when he knew that he had no heirs and all of the members of
> 'Abdu'l-Baha's family had broken the Covenant,
I think he still expected to produce an heir. His wife was still of
child-bearing age and she herself had been conceived by the miraculous
intervention of Abdu'l-Baha when her mother was well into her forties
and considered barren.
It was Mr. Taherzadeh's idea that it was a protection
> for Shoghi Effendi that other Guardians were mentioned, because his life
> could have been in grave danger from the sort of enemies which imperiled His
> own life if they had realised that he would be the only Guardian. Why I
> don't know.
Again, I think Mr. Taherzadeh went overboard with speculation. I don't
see how thinking there would be more Guardians could have protected
Shoghi Effendi's life.
I will have to
> say that his thinking was clearly laid out and much of it was verifiable in
> the Writings.
I don't see it verified, myself.
warmest, Susan
Douglas McAdam
On Aug 20, 2005, at 5:02 AM, sma...@jam.rr.com wrote:
> The Will and
> Testament says the House of Justice makes the laws and the *government*
> enforces them. That gives them legislative, but not executive
> authority.
>
Dear Susan-
This raises another question for me. Is this only applying to the
Baha'i community or the world society. In any case, are we not told to
be obedient to the House, and if so then they do have executive ability
to evoke sanctions upon us etc.
regards,
doug
Randy Burns
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1124514173....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Randy,
>
> I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but Baha'u'llah does not
> say we have been 'allowed' to carry on an ever-advancing civilization,
> He says we have been *created* to carry out an ever-advancing
> civilzation.
Yes, I agree, I didn't mean to use the word 'allow' here, I don't know where
that came from.
> The term for civilization here is 'salih-i alam' literally
> 'the reparation of the world.' But no, I don't think the Universal
> House of Justice can wage war or preside over-executions. The Will and
> Testament says the House of Justice makes the laws and the *government*
> enforces them. That gives them legislative, but not executive
> authority.
I don't see the difference, if the executive branch is the government which
carries out the laws of the UHJ. If the UHJ follows the advice of
Baha'u'llah in regards to the action to be taken against a renegade nation
that attacks another, then all nations would join together to put down that
renegade nation. Presumably the House of Justice would be approving of such
a decision. Presumably any thing done in a future Baha'i commonwealth would
meet with the approval of the House of Justice, would it not? Therefore the
House of Justice would be doing such things or involved in them in some
capacity, the mere division of labor between executive and legislative is
irrelevant. If the United States goes to war, we don't claim that our
legislative branch is not involved, if the federal government executes
someone for treason, we don't claim that our legislative branch had nothing
at all to do with that. They set the laws, so of course they are involved.
> The Universal House of Justice does have to rely on the information it
> receives, however reflecting the Will of God does mean that they will
> not act contrary to principle, IMV.
It can hardly be denied that if the House of Justice relies on false
information or fails to collect the proper information then it's decisions
can only reflect that falsity or failure (irregardless of the fact that they
continue to act from the principles of the Faith). True the principles of
the Faith remained unblemished, but can we say the same of those charged
with gathering the information? And is it the Will of God that it's
Universal House of Justice should act on false information?
> > I'm not sure that we can say that Abdu'l-Baha never suggested this. In
the
> > W&T on page 14, Abdu'l-Baha writes:
> >
> > "Should any of the members [of the UHJ] commit a sin, injurious to the
> > common weal, the guardian of the Cause of God hath at his own discretion
the
> > right to expel him..."
>
> I'm not saying that the individual members of the Universal House of
> Justice were incorruptible. Infallibility applies only to the
> istitution.
I think the question relates to necessary conditions for infallibility to
apply, unless you are saying that 'infallibility' refers only to the process
itself and not to the results.
> >
> > Another passage just earlier on the same page indicates:
> >
> > "It's [the UHJ's} members must be manifestations of the fear of God and
> > daysprings of knowledge and understanding, must be steadfast in God's
faith
> > and the well-wishers of all mankind."
>
> And how would the presence of a living Guardian change this?
It might or might not, but again the question relates to necessary
conditions that Abdu'l-Baha applies to the Universal House of Justice.
> > Now the important thing to keep in mind is that we are talking about an
> > institution that might last for thousands of years, and within that
context
> > we must ask ourselves the question that if the some of the UHJ members
do
> > not match or meet up with Abdu'l-Baha's qualifying statements then what
are
> > the consequences in terms of the promises made in regard to this
> > institution?
>
> The reference to House members manifesting the fear of God, etc. is not
> a 'qualifying statement' it is an admonition. The infallibility of the
> Universal House of Justice does not depend on the perfection of its
> membership. However, if one does commit a sin detrimental to the common
> weal, the Universal House of Justice has the constitutional authority
> to expell them.
Infallibility may not depend on such perfections, however what about the
quality and truth, or accuracy of the information relied upon by the UHJ to
make decisions? Doesn't the quality of such have any impact? Obviously it
has an impact on the actual decision made. Are you saying that the
decisions of the UHJ are all infallible even in some theoritical instant
where faulty information was relied upon?
The mere fact that the other House members can act to remove another House
member can hardly be seen as a warranty against future problems arising. In
effect we are relying on the House members to warrant themselves as to their
qualifications for the job they hold. Of course one could rely on the five
year elections if we could assume that the electors had the necessary
information to make judgements about the sitting members, but I'm not sure
that we can say that they would have that information available.
Cheers, Randy
sma...@jam.rr.com
> This raises another question for me. Is this only applying to the
> Baha'i community or the world society. In any case, are we not told to
> be obedient to the House, and if so then they do have executive ability
> to evoke sanctions upon us etc.
Dear Doug,
The Constitution and By-Laws of the Universal House of Justice gives
them executive authority over the Baha'i community. Presumably that
would not have been the case had there still been a living Guardian. My
understanding is that the reference to the government exercising
executive power refers to a future Baha'i Commonwealth not the Baha'i
Faith as a religious community.
warmest, Susan
sma...@jam.rr.com
> carries out the laws of the UHJ. If the UHJ follows the advice of
> Baha'u'llah in regards to the action to be taken against a renegade nation
> that attacks another, then all nations would join together to put down that
> renegade nation. Presumably the House of Justice would be approving of such
> a decision.
Dear Randy,
That might be a big presumption. Declaring war doesn't have to be an
act of legislation it could just be an executive decision.
Presumably any thing done in a future Baha'i commonwealth would
> meet with the approval of the House of Justice, would it not?
I don't know that they would have jurisdiction over everything in a
Baha'i Commonwealth.
If the United States goes to war, we don't claim that our
> legislative branch is not involved,
That's because our Constitution gives to Congress the right to declare
war. But there are times when the president makes a 'police action' and
Congress has nothing to do with it.
> It can hardly be denied that if the House of Justice relies on false
> information or fails to collect the proper information then it's decisions
> can only reflect that falsity or failure (irregardless of the fact that they
> continue to act from the principles of the Faith).
If they are fed false information that is one. But failure to conduct a
proper investigation would represent a moral failure on the part of the
Universal House of Justice which contradicts any notion of
infallibility.
> I think the question relates to necessary conditions for infallibility to
> apply, unless you are saying that 'infallibility' refers only to the process
> itself and not to the results.
I think it refers primarily to the process, but not exclusively.
> > > And how would the presence of a living Guardian change this?
>
> It might or might not, but again the question relates to necessary
> conditions that Abdu'l-Baha applies to the Universal House of Justice.
Conditions for what? For it to be a Universal House of Justice? For it
to be infallible? I don't see anything in the Writings which indicates
this.
> Infallibility may not depend on such perfections, however what about the
> quality and truth, or accuracy of the information relied upon by the UHJ to
> make decisions? Doesn't the quality of such have any impact? Obviously it
> has an impact on the actual decision made. Are you saying that the
> decisions of the UHJ are all infallible even in some theoritical instant
> where faulty information was relied upon?
I think they are correct in accordance with the information they have.
I also think the Universal House of Justice makes every effort to
ascertain the facts. But it is true that there may be times with the
truth is concealed from them.
>
> The mere fact that the other House members can act to remove another House
> member can hardly be seen as a warranty against future problems arising. In
> effect we are relying on the House members to warrant themselves as to their
> qualifications for the job they hold. Of course one could rely on the five
> year elections if we could assume that the electors had the necessary
> information to make judgements about the sitting members, but I'm not sure
> that we can say that they would have that information available.
The membership would presumably have some information as to what sort
of the person it is they are electing. As to whether they would be
aware of some sin committed by this person which might be injurious to
the common weal, it is the Universal House of Justice which determines
that. Yes, we are relying on that institution to monitor itself, but it
is infallible after all. ;-}
warmest, Susan
Douglas McAdam
But what would be a Baha'i Commonwealth if not one that adheres to the
Baha'i Teachings and its Administrative Order? I mean, after all, the
term commonwealth means having something in common, the various
economic, political, religious and civil systems working together in
unity.
Maybe we are getting away from the topic of Moral Relativism and ought
to change the subject line.
regards,
doug
Douglas McAdam
On Aug 22, 2005, at 12:30 AM, sma...@jam.rr.com wrote:
snip-- Randy wrote
>> Presumably any thing done in a future Baha'i commonwealth would
>> meet with the approval of the House of Justice, would it not?
>
> I don't know that they would have jurisdiction over everything in a
> Baha'i Commonwealth.
How could there be unity Susan if there is not one institution with the
final say?
>
>
snip--I
>
>> Infallibility may not depend on such perfections, however what about
>> the
>> quality and truth, or accuracy of the information relied upon by the
>> UHJ to
>> make decisions? Doesn't the quality of such have any impact?
>> Obviously it
>> has an impact on the actual decision made. Are you saying that the
>> decisions of the UHJ are all infallible even in some theoritical
>> instant
>> where faulty information was relied upon?
>
> I think they are correct in accordance with the information they have.
> I also think the Universal House of Justice makes every effort to
> ascertain the facts. But it is true that there may be times with the
> truth is concealed from them.
However there is another principle involved, that of being obedient to
the House regardless of what we think. We are told that any decision
reached in unity and which the community obeys in unity, if wrong, will
be righted.
I believe there are two parts to this issue. One is that our Beloved
House of Justice has conferred infallibility and must be obeyed. The
other is the responsibility or duty of individuals and the community to
obey. Total unity in the community is an ideal but if the majority of
the individuals respect and obey the institution we will achieve a
higher stage of unity the world has ever seen.
regards,
doug
Paul Bartlett
>> [trim]
> The Constitution and By-Laws of the Universal House of Justice gives
> them executive authority over the Baha'i community. Presumably that
> would not have been the case had there still been a living Guardian. My
> understanding is that the reference to the government exercising
> executive power refers to a future Baha'i Commonwealth not the Baha'i
> Faith as a religious community.
By what authority and by whom was the Constitution of the Universal
House of Justice written and adopted. Did the House members just make
it up themselves? That might seem a little presumptuous to me.
--
Paul Bartlett
sma...@jam.rr.com
> > Baha'i Commonwealth.
>
> How could there be unity Susan if there is not one institution with the
> final say?
Dear Doug,
It is quite possible for different institutions to have the final say
over different matters.
>
> However there is another principle involved, that of being obedient to
> the House regardless of what we think. We are told that any decision
> reached in unity and which the community obeys in unity, if wrong, will
> be righted.
I agree.
warmest, Susan
Douglas McAdam
On Aug 22, 2005, at 7:51 PM, sma...@jam.rr.com wrote:
> Dear Doug,
>
> It is quite possible for different institutions to have the final say
> over different matters.
Hi Susan-
Yes, I agree but what if there is a disagreement amongst them with some
issue that
crosses the lines?
regards,
doug
sma...@jam.rr.com
> Hi Susan-
> Yes, I agree but what if there is a disagreement amongst them with some
> issue that
> crosses the lines?
Dear Doug,
I don't know. Abdu'l-Baha was pretty explicit about the Universal House
of Justice not having executive power. On the other hand, Shoghi
Effendi insisted we must trust ton time and God's Universal House of
Justice to see how the New World Order will unfold.
warmest, Susan
Randy Burns
"Suzanne Gerstner" <sb.ge...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:004501c5a55a$24b09880$0202a8c0@gerstner...
>
> Dear Randy,
>
> It doesn't say in that passage that "only the Guardian can expel a House
> Member." Apparently the Universal House of Justice can do this too, since
> this same passage you quote is mentioned in the Constitution of the
> Universal House of Justice and is a reason for expulsion of a Member.
This
> is from their Constitution:
Thanks Suzanne. Yes you are right, the House itself can act to remove a
sitting member should it ever need to, but I was simply referring to the
original document of the Will and Testament which assumes that there would
be a living Guardian on the Universal House of Justice. I believe that the
House of Justice wrote it's own constitution, however I wonder if it would
have included that passage you have quoted if there had been a living
Guardian at that time? Possibly they would have, but since the Guardian
already had that power, perhaps they wouldn't have.
The differences between the two are simple, the Guardian is not elected or
reelected and has his position for life, so presumably he would be in a
better position to determine whether a sin is injurious to the commonweal or
not. That's just a guess on my part.
Cheers, Randy
sma...@jam.rr.com
>
> By what authority and by whom was the Constitution of the Universal
> House of Justice written and adopted. Did the House members just make
> it up themselves? That might seem a little presumptuous to me.
Dear Paul,
Shoghi Effendi said that the Universal House of Justice was to write
its own constitution, but virtually everything in it is derived from
some power given them elsewhere in the Writings.
warmest, Susan
Randy Burns
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1124684099.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dear Randy,
>
> That might be a big presumption. Declaring war doesn't have to be an
> act of legislation it could just be an executive decision.
I can hardly deny that, but in the final analysis my point is pretty simple.
Baha'u'llah allows for a 'just war' type of war, Baha'u'llah also allows for
the death penalty in certain circumstances. If either of these things
happen in a future world that is dominated by the Baha'i Faith, then
Baha'u'llah will bear part of the responsibility for them and by extension
the House of Justice as well. This also means that if someone is falsely
accused of a crime and is executed for that crime then these two parties
will also bear part of the burden of that action. People need to understand
that an infallible House of Justice is not necessarily a perfect one.
> > It can hardly be denied that if the House of Justice relies on false
> > information or fails to collect the proper information then it's
decisions
> > can only reflect that falsity or failure (irregardless of the fact that
they
> > continue to act from the principles of the Faith).
>
> If they are fed false information that is one. But failure to conduct a
> proper investigation would represent a moral failure on the part of the
> Universal House of Justice which contradicts any notion of
> infallibility.
While I realize that the word has moral implications, I don't hold that any
particular moral failure on the part of the UHJ would nullify the notion of
infallibility, but it does work against it I suspose but it wouldn't nullify
it, would it? except perhaps in regards to that one decision. That is a
good point though.
> > > > And how would the presence of a living Guardian change this?
> >
> > It might or might not, but again the question relates to necessary
> > conditions that Abdu'l-Baha applies to the Universal House of Justice.
>
> Conditions for what? For it to be a Universal House of Justice? For it
> to be infallible? I don't see anything in the Writings which indicates
> this.
If the infallibility depends on the moral nature of its decision making
process then it seems to me you can't say that there are no 'necessary
preconditions' that bear on the UHJ being an infallible institution. The
example you give above, that failure to carry out a proper investigation is
a contradiction of infallibility would mean that the admonishments of
Abdu'l-Baha are necessary preconditions of infallibility, don't you think?
In other words, if some particular members are not 'fearful of God' or
whatever then they also might not be morally able to conduct or insist on
thorough investigations of matters or they might be liable to some form of
corruption. This obviously undermines the "process" as it were, if indeed
infallibility is about process or refers to process.
> > The mere fact that the other House members can act to remove another
House
> > member can hardly be seen as a warranty against future problems arising.
In
> > effect we are relying on the House members to warrant themselves as to
their
> > qualifications for the job they hold. Of course one could rely on the
five
> > year elections if we could assume that the electors had the necessary
> > information to make judgements about the sitting members, but I'm not
sure
> > that we can say that they would have that information available.
>
> The membership would presumably have some information as to what sort
> of the person it is they are electing. As to whether they would be
> aware of some sin committed by this person which might be injurious to
> the common weal, it is the Universal House of Justice which determines
> that. Yes, we are relying on that institution to monitor itself, but it
> is infallible after all. ;-}
What if they fail to ascertain the facts?
Cheers, Randy
Suzanne Gerstner
>> So, even though they were not allowed to deviate a hair's breadth from
>> anything the Guardian said, they were given the task to vote on whether
>> they
>> agreed or not with his choice of a successor:
>
Susan wrote:
>
> I think you are misunderstanding this clause of the Will and Testament.
> The Guardian made it clear that the Hands did not have the right to
> overrule his appointment.
Dear Susan,
That may be true. I'd appreciate it if you would cite the reference though.
Whether that's true or not, the Will and Testament of 'ABdu'l-Baha did not
make this clear, imo.
The voting by the Hands was not intended to
> express agreement with the Guardian's choice so much as it was to
> ratify the fact that a choice had indeed been made. In other words, the
> majority of Hands had to agree that the Guardian had indeed appointed
> such-and-such a person as his successor, not that they thought it was a
> good choice.
That is what ended up happening, but it is not what is written in the Will
and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha. There it says they need to:
"...give their assent to the choice of the one whom the Guardian of the
Cause of God hath chosen as his successor. This assent must be given in such
wise as the assenting and dissenting voices may not be distinguished (i.e.,
secret ballot).
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Will and Testament, Page: 12)
The above does not say they need to give their assent that the Guardian has,
indeed, made a choice.
Suzanne wrote:
>
>> O friends! The Hands of the Cause of God must be nominated and
>> appointed by the Guardian of the Cause of God. All must be under his
>> shadow
>> and obey his command. Should any, within or without the company of the
>> Hands of the Cause of God disobey and seek division, the wrath of God and
>> His vengeance will be upon him, for he will have caused a breach in the
>> true
>> Faith of God.
>> (`Abdu'l-Baha: Will and Testament, Pages: 11-13)
>>
>> So all of this was foreshadowed in the Will and Testament of
>> 'Abdu'l-Baha,
>> and also in that passage I mentioned before in the Kitab-i-Aqdas it was
>> foreshadowed that the line of Guardians could be terminated before the
>> election of the Universal House of Justice.
Susan:
>
> Do you mean by this that it was foreshadowing what Mason Remey did?
Yes.
Susan wrote:
I
> don't think so or Abdu'l-Baha would not named obedience to the Guardian
> as the grounds for expulsion. Since there was no Guardian when Mason
> Remey made his claim the Remeyites could (and did) assert that this
> passage didn't apply. It does, however, indicate that the Hands had the
> legal right to expell even if the Guardian had relegated that right to
> himself for the time being.
In a letter about this theme, the Universal House of Justice says that the
Hands of the Cause did find that, "by implication", Mason Remey was
"disobeying" and "seeking division":
"...Looking at the situation purely in terms of the wording of the Master's
Will and Shoghi Effendi's messages, it is evident that the Will gives the
Hands the authority to expel those who "oppose and protest" against the
Guardian and, by implication, those who "disobey" him and "seek division".
The Hands of the Cause concluded that the very advancing of a claim to the
Guardianship in conflict with the spirit and letter of the terms of the Will
was a repudiation of the terms of a sacred document, the very charter on
which the institution of the Guardianship rested.
(The Universal House of Justice, 1997 June 04, Covenant-Breaking and the
Hands)
The Universal House of Justice, in the same letter the above passage was
from, backed up the Hands of the Cause of God's decision that Remey was
disobeying. They said:
"...Mason Remey's subsequent acts showed the extent to which he would go in
challenging the actions of Shoghi Effendi. For example, in a general letter
of 12 November 1966 published in December 1966 he announced: 'The first
Guardian of the Faith so construed the Master 'Abdu'l- Baha's Will and
Testament that he formed his Administration upon the Bábí Faith and not upon
the Bahá'í Faith. This mistake has caused so much confusion and
misunderstanding and trouble that the only thing for the second Guardian to
do, to set matters aright, is to discard all which Shoghi Effendi did and to
institute a New Faith which shall be the Orthodox Faith of Bahá'u'lláh under
the Holy Name of ABHA in order to carry out the conditions that will lead to
the establishment of the TRUE Bahá'í Faith (of Bahá'u'lláh) which Faith has
not yet been established in the world.'
"In another general letter dated 31 January 1967 he referred to: 'violations
of the Faith that were made unwittingly by Shoghi Effendi'".
(The Universal House of Justice, 1997 June 04, Covenant-Breaking and the
Hands)
So it would seem that both the Hands of the Cause of God, and the Universal
House of Justice found that Mason Remey was disoebdient to Shoghi Effendi
after his passing.
Kind regards,
Suzanne
sma...@jam.rr.com
> > The Guardian made it clear that the Hands did not have the right to
> > overrule his appointment.
>
> Dear Susan,
>
> That may be true. I'd appreciate it if you would cite the reference though.
> Whether that's true or not, the Will and Testament of 'ABdu'l-Baha did not
> make this clear, imo.
Dear Suzanne,
Here's the Guardian's statement:
"The statement in the Will of 'Abdu'l-Bahá does not imply that the
Hands
of the Cause of God have been given the authority to overrule the
Guardian. 'Abdu'l-Bahá could not have provided for a conflict of
authority in the Faith..." February 1955
> In a letter about this theme, the Universal House of Justice says that the
> Hands of the Cause did find that, "by implication", Mason Remey was
> "disobeying" and "seeking division"
That isn't what it looked like at the time. Hasan Balyuzi, for
instance, originally opposed naming Mason Remey a Covenant breaker
precisely because his actions weren't mentioned in the Will and
Testament and he was adverse to creating a new category of Covenant
breakers.
>
> The Universal House of Justice, in the same letter the above passage was
> from, backed up the Hands of the Cause of God's decision that Remey was
> disobeying. They said:
>
> "...Mason Remey's subsequent acts showed the extent to which he would go in
> challenging the actions of Shoghi Effendi. For example, in a general letter
> of 12 November 1966 published in December 1966 he announced:
Yes, by 1966 he was openly criticizing Shoghi Effendi. But as I said,
this was not so evident at the time even to the Hands themselves.
warmest, Susan
Suzanne Gerstner
>> though.
>> Whether that's true or not, the Will and Testament of 'ABdu'l-Baha did
>> not
>> make this clear, imo.
>
> Dear Suzanne,
>
> Here's the Guardian's statement:
>
> "The statement in the Will of 'Abdu'l-Bahá does not imply that the
> Hands
> of the Cause of God have been given the authority to overrule the
> Guardian. 'Abdu'l-Bahá could not have provided for a conflict of
> authority in the Faith..." February 1955
Dear Susan,
Yes, exactly. That was the point. That 'Abdu'l-Baha seemed to be giving
them a sort of task that they really couldn't have fulfilled without going
against some of the rest of what He said. Shoghi Effendi may have made this
clear in 1955, but 'Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament was written long before
that, and there must have been a very good reason for it.
I'm not sure what the point is you're trying to get across or what you hear
me saying. I am not saying that 'Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi had a
crystal ball and knew everything beforehand. From the beginning I have been
trying to say that it makes sense to me that *God* -- Who is supposed to be
inspiring both 'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi -- would do whatever He had
to do to protect His Faith -- whether 'ABdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi were
fully aware of the reason for it all or not. Like Mr. Taherzadeh, I believe
in spiritual reality and I don't think that the Faith of God is just about
chance and coincidence. There are many quotes in the Writings that back me
up on that, and I cited a few of them in the beginning. There is no time in
the world of God, so obviously God knew the end in the beginning. God's
Hand is not chained up, so if He wanted Shoghi Effendi to have an heir, he
would have had one. The things I pointed out are just signposts for those
who already believe in God. For those who don't, there's no point trying to
argue anything.
I have also said from the beginning that I wasn't sure that I was reflecting
Mr. Taherzadeh's statements correctly. He isn't here to tell you what he
meant, so there doesn't seem to be any point in going around in circles
about it.
Kind regards,
Suzanne
sma...@jam.rr.com
> Yes, exactly. That was the point. That 'Abdu'l-Baha seemed to be giving
> them a sort of task that they really couldn't have fulfilled without going
> against some of the rest of what He said. Shoghi Effendi may have made this
> clear in 1955, but 'Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament was written long before
> that, and there must have been a very good reason for it.
Dear Suzanne,
Sorry to take so long in responding. I was blown offline by a certain
hurricane. But the above is not what I'm suggesting at all. I do *not*
think Abdu'l-Baha gave them a task which could not be fulfilled without
going against the rest of the things He said. The Hands' task was to
confirm that an appointment had indeed been made, not so much to
approve of the Guardian's choice. If there was any question as to the
Guardian had indeed made an appointment or if he had been of sound mind
when he did so, it was up to the Hands to determine that this had taken
place.
Like Mr. Taherzadeh, I believe
> in spiritual reality and I don't think that the Faith of God is just about
> chance and coincidence.
I don't see accidents as necessarily negating spiritual reality.
There is no time in
> the world of God, so obviously God knew the end in the beginning.
In His unknowable Essence, yes. But I'm not sure we have much to do
with that. As human beings we deal with His revealed Will, not His
Essence. And that Will is sometimes subject to change or *badah.*
warmest, Susan