Dismissal of Chairman of US National Bahai Assembly for Stealing Money from a Deceased Old Widow
Frederick Glaysher
Dismissal of Judge James F. Nelson, Chair of the National Spiritual Assembly
of the Baha'is of the United States, in April, 1999.
April 6, 1999
Delegates to the 1999 Baha'i National Convention
Beloved Friends,
We deeply regret the necessity of informing you that James F. Nelson has
been guilty of gross negligence in the performance of his duties as a member
of the National Spiritual Assembly and that, although he has expressed his
profound regret for the related occurrences, and has effected full
restitution of the damage done, he has felt impelled, by his awareness of
the high responsibility of the post in which he has been serving, to tender
his resignation from the membership of the National Spiritual Assembly, and
the National Spiritual Assembly has accepted this resignation.
At this painful moment the National Spiritual Assembly offers James Nelson
its loving support and prayers.
NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHA'IS OF THE UNITED STATES
[signed]
Robert C. Henderson
Secretary-General
cc: Continental Counselors serving tthe United States
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Commentary
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 09:14:15 -0700
From: Steven Scholl
Subject: Nelson
To: tali...@umich.edu
Here is all I know about the situation.
Jim Nelson was helping an elderly Baha'i in Pasadena with her finances. I
believe he had some power to sign checks from her account for paying bills,
etc. She told Jim that she wanted her payment to the huquq [the 19% tax on
some income to be paid to the Universal House of Justice in Haifa, Israel
according to Baha'i law] to be set up as an endowment rather than being a
lump sum payment. On her death, Jim placed the huquq funds from her accounts
into a new account under his name. This led to protests from the estate's
executor and prompted the NSA to go on the war path with claims of
wrongdoing. I do not know if the executor of the estate is a Baha'i or not.
Since the huquq funds would be directed to Haifa, one can imagine why
[National Spiritual Assembly secretary-general Robert C.] Henderson would be
upset by Jim's action. Henderson has been accused in the past of
mismanagement of funds, of hijacking contributions earmarked to the World
Centre into a special NSA account, skimming off the interest and then at the
end of the year sending the principle along to Haifa. But this is purely
personal speculation on my part.
This is the only thing I have heard in terms of "wrongdoing" on Nelson's
part, whereas Henderson's letter to the delegates refers to "related
occurrences" in the plural. As for restitution, I understand that the money
never went anywhere and, in the end, the funds were handled according to the
wishes of the deceased Baha'i in the way Jim was planning to set up in the
first place.
So, what does this all indicate? My take is that for years there has been
rivalries and factions on the NSA, especially between the West Coast Gang
led by the Nelsons (with Bill Davis and Juana Conrad) vs. the
Henderson/Kazemzadeh block. I have heard that in their rebuke to Nelson the
NSA refered to his "careless" behavior, while in the letter to the delegates
they refer to "gross negligence in the performance of duties." My view is
that if the NSA was sincere in their concern for Nelson and his spiritual
growth, they would have simply accepted his resignation and informed the
delegates that after years of service, Judge Nelson has resigned for health
or personal reasons. The letter to the delegates seems to me to be a blatant
campaign maneuver. It seems aimed at (1) publicly humiliating Jim Nelson and
(2) helping guide the delegates in their voting for a candidate from the
Henderson/Kazemzadeh Good Old Boys Network rather than from the now suspect
Nelson Network.
As someone who has dealt with Henderson and Kazemzadeh in the past and had
them use lies and slander in their attacks on my beliefs and behavior, this
latest outburst is not at all surprising and fits their modus operandi
perfectly. That is to say, the timing and the pure sleeziness of this
blatant political manuvering fits with their history of self-promotion
combined with vicious personal attacks against those who might threaten
their grip of power over the American Baha'i community.
Having been absent from these Baha'i cultural wars now for several years, I
do find it fascinating that since many of us old "heretics" have either left
the faith, lost rights, or gone into the grand occultation of self-imposed
exile and inactivity, the leadership, at a loss for enemies, seems intent on
feeding on each other.
Needless to say, it will be interesting how the delegates respond to this
news, whether they will back Henderson and Kazemzadeh by voting in one of
their cronies or protest this action by voting in a West coast candidate.
Steve
-----------------------------------------------------
Date: 4-14-99
To: tali...@umich.edu
From: Juan Cole
Subject: Re: NSA elections
Actually, early twentieth century Baha'is under `Abdu'l-Baha had perfectly
democratic elections, and were instructed to do it that way by `Abdu'l-Baha.
During WW I when there was conflict over whether to support the war effort
or adopt a pacifist stance, hawks like Mason Remey organized a campaign for
the NSA in 1917 in which they captured it and reversed the previous pacifist
policy! Older Baha'is spoke of the times when Republican and Democratic
Baha'is wouldn't speak with one another.
The problem with the current situation is not merely that the voting records
of the NSA members are completely unknown. It is that the activities and
policies of the NSA as a whole are almost completely unknown! What exactly
do these people do? What policies have they made? What effect have the
policies had? Have they been good for the growth of the community,
numerically and spiritually? Without knowing the answer to this question,
how can the delegates even begin to vote intelligently? Though, as we have
seen, the very rules of the elections leave them with little potential
impact.
We know that there were about 48,000 adult Baha'is with good addresses in
the US in 1978. There are now about 60,000. In the meantime 12,000 Iranians
immigrated. This means that there has been no growth in over twenty years.
*None*. Of course, hundreds if not a few thousands of people have come in
during the past two decades, but enormous numbers of them have gone right
back out. Would any CEO who had not increased his earnings a single penny
over twenty years be reappointed by the board?
The exclusivistic policies of Mr. Henderson, who is frankly mean-spirited,
have contributed enormously to this Great Stagnation. He was the one who
cracked down on Dialogue magazine in such a nasty way. He bullied Baha'i
travel agents in 1991, for the Lord knows what reward from the corrupt
Corporate Travel Consultants. He agitated behind the scenes for a crackdown
on tali...@indiana.edu. He has chased travel teachers out of the country,
seeing them as an electoral threat should they become successful. I have no
idea about the propriety of Jim Nelson's book-keeping practices, but surely
for Henderson to publicly smear him after Jim served on the NSA 1971-1999,
in circumstances where Nelson cannot even publicly defend himself, is the
height of sleaze. Henderson has arranged for himself to live rent free free
in a 9-bedroom mansion (having the Bourgeois studio knocked down to build
it, against UHJ instructions) with free Baha'i maids and gardeners, and his
main business seems to be bullying Baha'is into silence behind the scenes.
And I fully acknowledge that he is probably acting rationally given the way
the Baha'i system is structured.
So, I think all these things are related: the fact that the Baha'i faith in
the US has been going nowhere fast for decades; the fact that the electoral
system seems to elect the ambitious and greedy (and paranoid) to the top
offices; the fact that even initially upright people are made perpetual
incumbents, exposing them to the temptations of absolute power held for
decades and corrupting them; the fact that the electoral system provides an
incentive for the incumbents to slap down and chase out potential
competitors; the fact that it would not be in the incumbents' interest for
the faith to expand, become more open, attract a lot of new voters who might
rock the boat.
Term limits would go a long way toward solving all these problems. In fact,
why not have staggered elections for 4-year terms? You could elect 5 members
in 2000 and 4 in 2002. People who don't serve as long as Nelson did might
not become tempted to act high-handedly. They wouldn't face reelection and
so would have no reason to fear being unseated by active young folks.
Counselor Fred Schechter, one of the people who falsely accused me, once
told a friend of mine that anyone who becomes active in the faith will be
attacked (by the faith's officials, it is implied). We hadn't at the time
realized that Schechter intended to *act* on this observation!
This is a dysfunctional system, folks. There are ways in which it destroyed
Dan Jordan (forcing him to live a lie and to resort to secret trysts), Allen
Ward, and now Jim Nelson--not to mention the spiritual harm it has wreaked
on the Baby Boom intellectuals who were enticed in with promises of
tolerance and justice (!!!).
When Glenford Mitchell had become a huge pain in the ass as NSA secretary
and was finally elected off it to the UHJ, everyone breathed a big sigh of
relief. And when Henderson came in, the word was that he was a good guy, and
we were all relieved. And then in a few short years he demonstrated that he
was an even bigger pain in the ass than Mitchell had been. Even dumping
Henderson wouldn't solve the problem. The *system* creates the Hendersons
and the Nelsons. If anyone cared about the fortunes of the faith as opposed
to the size of their marble offices, they would fix the system.
cheers Juan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Return to Documents
To Baha'i Studies
To Talisman
<jri...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:7focup$gi9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
> Documents and discussions regarding the recent dismissal of the chairman
of
> the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the US for 'financial
> improprieties' may be found at:
>
> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/bhnsa.htm
>
> cheers Juan
>
>
> --
> Juan Cole, History, U of Michigan
> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm
> Buy *Modernity and the Millennium: The Genesis of the Baha'i Faith* at:
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0231110812/002-4036721-8058448
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Frederick Glaysher
and will certainly continue as long as there are no structural
mechanisms to balance and limit the power and ruthlessness
of Bahai administrators.
--
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm On talk.religion.bahai,
alt.religion.bahai, and AOL: Keyword Bahai or Newsgroups
Richard Boyle
Frederick Glaysher
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/technique.htm
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm On talk.religion.bahai,
alt.religion.bahai, and AOL: Keyword Bahai, Message Boards
Richard Boyle wrote in message <37209175...@penetics.com>...
Saman Ahmadi
"Light of the world, shine on me,
Fred's hompage is the answer"
England Dan and John Ford Coley
-saman
Frederick Glaysher
any integrity whatsoever....
Richard Boyle
for posting still more references to his homepages.
I suspect the coding goes something like:
If question = difficult
then send URLs*53
else if question = easy
then send insults
end if
Saman Ahmadi wrote:
> "Light of the world, shine on me,
> Fred's hompage is the answer"
>
> England Dan and John Ford Coley
>
> -saman
>
> Frederick Glaysher wrote:
>
> > "The Bahai Technique":
> > http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/technique.htm
> >
> > Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
> > http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm On talk.religion.bahai,
> > alt.religion.bahai, and AOL: Keyword Bahai, Message Boards
Robert A. Little
You get a C++ for your coding (only).
Just color me pro-grammer in LA,
Robert A. Little
In article <3725ECA2...@penetics.com>,
--
Robert A. Little
Chatsworth, California
Frederick Glaysher
news:3725ECA2...@penetics.com...
> Stll the FredBot cannot provide the proof for his slanderous statement,
except
> for posting still more references to his homepages.
I consider your reference insulting. Are you
the Gyr Falcon troll? Where's your "Bahai"
politeness now?
Frederick Glaysher
Frederick Glaysher
now.... Why are you ignoring the evidence
the Chairman of the NSA of AMERICA
STEALING money from dead widows?
Frederick Glaysher
Robert A. Little <rlit...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:7g52vf$b0n$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
> Richard
>
> You get a C++ for your coding (only).
>
> Just color me pro-grammer in LA,
>
> Robert A. Little
>
> In article <3725ECA2...@penetics.com>,
> Richard Boyle <ric...@penetics.com> wrote:
> > Stll the FredBot cannot provide the proof for his slanderous statement,
except
> > for posting still more references to his homepages.
> >
Richard Boyle
from you ever. All I have seen are meaningless posts, rants and raves and
insults. Where's your politeness? You who claimed to be a Baha'i
Hah.
Frederick Glaysher wrote:
> Richard Boyle <ric...@penetics.com> wrote in message
> news:3725ECA2...@penetics.com...
> > Stll the FredBot cannot provide the proof for his slanderous statement,
> except
> > for posting still more references to his homepages.
>
Rick Schaut
Frederick Glaysher <fgla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:92529706...@news.remarQ.com...
> Why are you ignoring the evidence
> the Chairman of the NSA of AMERICA
> STEALING money from dead widows?
What evidence? That's a serious question. Let's consider what we really
have:
1) We have a supposed letter from the Secretary-General of the National
Spiritual Assembly addressed to the delegates of the US National Convention.
The letter hasn't been authenticated.
2) The letter states only that Judge Nelson was grossly neglegent in carrying
out his duties. It give absolutely no details.
3) We have speculation by two people who couldn't possibly have received
whatever information they think they have from first-hand sources.
Of course, I fully expect Mr. Glaysher to respond with yet another pointer to
his web site, as if such pointers do, indeed, constitute further evidence to
support the allegations he makes.
But, this is how it all starts. First, a resignation becomes a "dismissal".
Then a few people who aren't party to any facts begin to speculate as to the
details, and their speculation assumes the existence of so-called "factions"
within the US National Spiritual Assembly. Then others begin to toss in
their own speculation, until, eventually, rumor becomes "fact". It's all
rather disgusting to see.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
macleod
Rick Schaut wrote in message <7g7636$b...@news1.newsguy.com>...
<< snip >>
>
>But, this is how it all starts. First, a resignation becomes a
"dismissal".
>Then a few people who aren't party to any facts begin to speculate as to
the
>details, and their speculation assumes the existence of so-called
"factions"
>within the US National Spiritual Assembly. Then others begin to toss in
>their own speculation, until, eventually, rumor becomes "fact".
Yes I think this is a reasonable analysis of how rumours develop. I feel
though you leave out an important factor. In general, there must be someone
keeping a secret or at least a popular perception that someone is keeping a
secret.
> It's all
>rather disgusting to see.
>
No, its just human.
"Say, all things are of God"
"Repeat the gaze. Cans't thou perceive a single flaw?"
Roger Reini
<RSSc...@email.msn.NOSPAMcom> wrote:
>
>Frederick Glaysher <fgla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:92529706...@news.remarQ.com...
>> Why are you ignoring the evidence
>> the Chairman of the NSA of AMERICA
>> STEALING money from dead widows?
>
>What evidence? That's a serious question. Let's consider what we really
>have:
>
>1) We have a supposed letter from the Secretary-General of the National
>Spiritual Assembly addressed to the delegates of the US National Convention.
>The letter hasn't been authenticated.
For what it's worth -- our local delegate to the convention informed
us via e-mail of the newly elected assembly. Judge Nelson (Mr.) is no
longer on the national spiritual assembly. Judge Nelson (Mrs.) is on
the assembly (vice-chair).
>
>2) The letter states only that Judge Nelson was grossly neglegent in carrying
>out his duties. It give absolutely no details.
>
>3) We have speculation by two people who couldn't possibly have received
>whatever information they think they have from first-hand sources.
I read that speculation, and I could state some speculation of my own,
but I won't. It wouldn't be appropriate and, since it would be
specific to Judge Nelson, it would constitute backbiting.
>
>Of course, I fully expect Mr. Glaysher to respond with yet another pointer to
>his web site, as if such pointers do, indeed, constitute further evidence to
>support the allegations he makes.
>
>But, this is how it all starts. First, a resignation becomes a "dismissal".
>Then a few people who aren't party to any facts begin to speculate as to the
>details, and their speculation assumes the existence of so-called "factions"
>within the US National Spiritual Assembly. Then others begin to toss in
>their own speculation, until, eventually, rumor becomes "fact". It's all
>rather disgusting to see.
>
>
>Regards,
>Rick Schaut
Robert A. Little
There is a Baha'i principal which is relevant to this ugly thread:
Independent Investigation of Truth. Has anyone actually posted any facts? I
haven't seen any so far, although I have seen some ugly claims made.
The propensity to jump to conclusions before knowing what the facts are is
called blind faith where I come from, and no Baha'i ought to do that. Once
the facts are known, then some other principles come into play. Forgiveness
for either the perpetrator of the misdeed, or the calumniator who failed to
determine the facts before attacking. Love, mercy, forebearance, the list is
long.
Life is the test of our character, and through tests God reveals the flaws
in that character.
Robert A. Little
ps "stealing from a dead widow"?
Roger Reini <rre...@wwnet.net> wrote in message
news:372c4ff7....@news.newsguy.com...
Saman Ahmadi
Rick Schaut wrote:
>
> I understood what you meant entirely. Someone who would consider
> rumor-mongering to be s mere "peccadillo" is not likely to have ever been
> the subject of any such rumor. As someone who has been the subject of a
> fairly nasty rumor, I can tell you that Baha'u'llah's statement about the
> harmful effects of backbiting is spot on. Something that "quencheth the
> light of the heart and extinguisheth the life of the soul" is at least as
> disgusting to see as some of the rarer forms of human behavior including
> those behaviors that involve the wanton taking of other people's lives.
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
I couldn't agree more.
In the Kitab-i-Aqdas, K19, Baha'u'llah writes:
"Ye have been forbidden to commit murder or adultry, or to
engage in backbiting or calumny; shun ye, then, what hath
been prohibited in the holy Books and Tablets."
I think it is telling that Baha'u'llah, in my view, seems to
equate backbiting to murder and calumny to adultry.
Baha'is will have a chance to ask questions from their respective
delegates during the meeting at which each delegate gives
a report of the National Convention. Speculation on a public
forum is not going to result in any good.
-saman
Rick Schaut
macleod <mac...@beloved.com> wrote in message
news:925322549.23200.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> Yes I think this is a reasonable analysis of how rumours develop. I feel
> though you leave out an important factor. In general, there must be someone
> keeping a secret or at least a popular perception that someone is keeping a
> secret.
I'm sorry, but I don't quite follow this. The absence of details that would
be humiliating to the individuals involved is supposed to excuse the fact
that people are speculating on matters about which they know next to nothing?
I'm not buying.
> > It's all
> >rather disgusting to see.
> No, its just human.
So is walking into a high-school and shooting up the place. If people do it,
then it's "just human". Doesn't make it any less disgusting to see.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
macleod
Rick Schaut wrote in message <7g9kle$1j...@news1.newsguy.com>...
>
>I'm sorry, but I don't quite follow this. The absence of details that
would
>be humiliating to the individuals involved is supposed to excuse the fact
>that people are speculating on matters about which they know next to
nothing?
>I'm not buying.
that's available on any subject the more inclination to spread and believe
rumours. Nothing kills a rumour quicker than a well documented truth. Now
the Bahai administration, in my opinion, is a relatively closed, secretive
society. Deliberations are not made public, trials are without jury or
public presentation of verdicts, and decisions do not have to be justified
when announced (though they sometimes are). In addition, partly due to our
current small numbers, there is no independant media of any significance.
Please do not read this as a criticism - the Faith gains immensely from all
this in some ways. However an inevitable result is a tendency for rumours to
gain currency. I personally do not think it is very useful to debate this
always in terms of how individuals should behave better. It is worth
considering whether adjusting the structure of the Faith (without deviating
from the Writings) would adjust the behaviour of the members.
>
>> > It's all
>> >rather disgusting to see.
>
>> No, its just human.
>
>So is walking into a high-school and shooting up the place. If people do
it,
>then it's "just human". Doesn't make it any less disgusting to see.
>
I can only assume that our respective regional varieties of English differ
and I apologise for answering you in the colloquial style that I would use
to fellow speakers of my own brand of English rather than the more formal
style suited to international discourse.
In my colloquial use of English 'It's just human' would relate to minor
peccadilloes, naughtiness and weakness common amongst the great mass of
people which anyone with any desire to function in society puts up with
gracefully. It certainly wouldn't cover the extreme and highly unusual
behaviour you mention. I am trying to make a serious point. Of course we
should aspire to a society where behaviour is ever more exalted. Of course
we may dream of such a society becoming a reality. But to find common
behaviour of the current time disgusting is I think unfortunate.
Rick Schaut
>
> Rick Schaut wrote in message <7g9kle$1j...@news1.newsguy.com>...
> >
> >I'm sorry, but I don't quite follow this. The absence of details that
> >would be humiliating to the individuals involved is supposed to excuse
> >the fact that people are speculating on matters about which they know
> >next to nothing?
> No its not an excuse.
[Snip]
> However an inevitable result is a tendency for rumours to
> gain currency. I personally do not think it is very useful to debate this
> always in terms of how individuals should behave better.
Except that we're talking about behavior that Baha'u'llah considered
unacceptable, and in no uncertain terms:
"That seeker should also regard backbiting as grievous error, and keep
himself aloof from its dominion, inasmuch as backbiting quencheth the light
of the heart, and extinguisheth the life of the soul."
--Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 193
> >So is walking into a high-school and shooting up the place. If people do
> >it, then it's "just human". Doesn't make it any less disgusting to see.
> In my colloquial use of English 'It's just human' would relate to minor
> peccadilloes, naughtiness and weakness common amongst the great mass of
> people which anyone with any desire to function in society puts up with
> gracefully.
I understood what you meant entirely. Someone who would consider
Kathy Pascoe
<RSSc...@email.msn.NOSPAMcom> wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I don't quite follow this. The absence of details that would
> be humiliating to the individuals involved is supposed to excuse the fact
> that people are speculating on matters about which they know next to nothing?
Based on the extremely small amount of information I've seen, the source
of the speculation is the ungracious way Mr. Nelson's departure was
phrased, if the letter I saw quoted is authentic.
Rewarding someone for years of service with anything other than 'he's
chosen to leave' (assuming there was no crime committed) would strike
many people as dreadfully unfair. Suggesting that someone left because
of financial misconduct might get them shunned in their community. If
there really was misconduct, but complete restitution was made and no
charges were filed, it's inappropriate for anyone other than Mr. Nelson
to bring that to light.
I've no idea of the real details. I'd assume Juan did everything in his
power to confirm the authenticity of the letter he posted to his
website. It would be irresponsible to post something that inflammatory
without being very sure it came from its purported source.
As you may have guessed, if that letter is authentic, I'm with those who
think its tone is rude and disrespectful of someone who apparently
volunteered years of service, but who may have been losing it toward the
end of that service.
You tend to jump on people, Rick. Can give an impression of you being
rigid, inflexible, accusatory. Not sure if you realized it or not; you
may want to moderate your tone.
--
Kathy Pascoe ~ ka...@scconsult.com (at home)
Confused about newsgroups? Visit <news:news.newusers.questions>
Marcia E S
my love for this Faith. Unfortunately, I have reached a point where this fire
has dwindled. It is very hard to stay an active Baha'i when you see the
administrations faltering in judgment....
So I follow this and other threads with interest. And I am curious as to
thoughts regarding the quote Rick Schaut uses and something that happened a few
years back that sickened me as a (Canadian) Baha'i:
>"That seeker should also regard backbiting as grievous error, and keep
himself aloof from its dominion, inasmuch as backbiting quencheth the light
of the heart, and extinguisheth the life of the soul."
--Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 193
What happened was an issue of a publication of Baha'i Canada printed a list of
Baha'is who had lost their administration rights, and why. Not in depth why -
more like, "violation of marriage laws" and what have you.
My question - was the NSA of Canada "divinely guided" in allowing this? Is it
common in other NSA's? And does it not break the spirit of the above quote by
violating the privacy of those whose names were printed? And if so, was their
"heart" and "soul" darkened and extinguished in making the decison to print?
And come to think of it, would my even bringing this up be regarded as
"backbiting" even though it really happened (I read it myself) and I am not
seeking to slander or incite but merely seeking illumination?
By the way, this is my first time posting so I hope the etiquette is OK in my
posting to this thread and not starting a new one....
Sincerely,
Marcia
>Subject: Re: Resignation
>From: "Rick Schaut" <RSSc...@email.msn.NOSPAMcom>
>Date: 4/29/99 6:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <7gal5a$1...@news1.newsguy.com>
>
>
>macleod <mac...@beloved.com> wrote in message
>news:925411095.50728.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> Rick Schaut wrote in message <7g9kle$1j...@news1.newsguy.com>...
>> >
>> >I'm sorry, but I don't quite follow this. The absence of details that
>> >would be humiliating to the individuals involved is supposed to excuse
>> >the fact that people are speculating on matters about which they know
>> >next to nothing?
>
rlit...@my-dejanews.com
I feel strongly that your posting here is a very good thing, and I also feel
strongly that this question is one which can be be discussed. The fact that
you are hesitant as to whether it can be asked demonstrates to me an
understanding that there is more than one principle at work here.
First, is your belief that the administration is faltering. You don't say
which particular one you mean. Is it the National Spiritual Assembly of
Canada or the US? The Universal House of Justice? Or your Local Spiritual
Assembly. My experience has been that Local Spiritual Assemblies are
frequently a mess. I don't mean that as a condemnation of anybody or
anything, but the fact is that in those countries where I have lived, most
Baha'is have been relatively new and inexperienced, and have frequently trod
rather heavily on one or more principles, mostly with good intentions, but
not always. Good intentions is one of those things we work on as Baha'is,
just as we struggle to develop the virtues which perhaps result from those
good intentions. I have lived in communities where I had to walk from house
to house to see the members of the Spiritual Assembly, and to attempt to get
them to vote or make a decision.
First step in community building.
At the other end of the extreme, I live in a relatively huge Baha'i community
which lost its Spiritual Assembly due to severe problems with certain
fundamental Baha'i principles. This felt terrible when it happened, but out of
that experience the community developed a heightened awareness of the problem,
and has since gone on to become a source of knowledge and experience to the
city administration and to the community as a whole.
I guess I mean to say that stumbling is a good thing, for it is a painful
reminder of the results of neglectfulness, or worse. I once knew a wonderful
Baha'i who felt that to fail tests was in many ways better than passing them,
as the horrid experience tended to fix the lesson extremely well. Can't say I
agree with her, but it is an interesting viewpoint.
I strongly believe that in the closing months of the Four Year Plan, the
entire Baha'i community is being asked to take a relatively huge leap
forward. As a whole, we have been communities in name only: we greet each
other warmly at Feast, and go home. The Universal House of Justice is calling
on us to forge true communities with strong ties on many levels, and calling
on these communities to turn outward and begin the task - as Baha'i
communities of loving, dedicated, deepened, resourceful and knowledgeable
people - of effecting changes in the greater communities of which we are as
yet a very small part.
This leap forward has brought upon the communities and their individual
members severe tests. It is easy to say yes, but it is another thing entirely
to DO yes, and that is what is required today. And, I think that we are going
to see many changes in individuals and communities, new ways of thinking, and
new ways of doing things. Some of these changes may well be painful, but
growth is painful, not-growth is death.
As to your question of the printing of the list, I don't know.? I know that
in my community, we have had to post people at the entrance to Feasts to
check Baha'i ID's, because of the actions of some non-Baha'is who have
successfully attended Feasts for purposes not related to devotion to
Baha'u'llah. I think that I would write the National Spiritual Assembly of
Canada and ask why this action was taken. That is your right, and that body
must reply in a timely manner. If you don't get satisfaction, you may take
the matter to the Universal House of Justice. This body does answer in a
timely manner. If the emphasis is on clarification due to a lack of
understanding the reason for the action, this would be proper I think.
Your etiquette is fine.
Hope to hear from you soon and often.
With love,
Robert A. Little
In article <19990430123241...@ng-cd1.aol.com>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Chris Manvell
>What happened was an issue of a publication of Baha'i Canada printed a list of
>Baha'is who had lost their administration rights, and why. Not in depth why -
>more like, "violation of marriage laws" and what have you.
You don't say what the distribution was but I assume it was to the whole
community. I have to admit that I don't like that but would agree that a
list has to be distributed at least to the Assemblies, otherwise how
would they know if someone has lost their administrative rights or not.
These rights include taking part in the election of the Assembly and
attendance at Nineteen Day Feasts.
>My question - was the NSA of Canada "divinely guided" in allowing this? Is it
>common in other NSA's? And does it not break the spirit of the above quote by
>violating the privacy of those whose names were printed? And if so, was their
>"heart" and "soul" darkened and extinguished in making the decison to print?
In the UK the names are listed in the Journal at the time of loss of
rights and when they are reinstated. I should add that one member of our
National Spiritual Assembly said that the worse matter on which they had
to consult was on the removal of rights. Also, please bear in mind that
everything possible is done to try not to reach that stage.
>And come to think of it, would my even bringing this up be regarded as
>"backbiting" even though it really happened (I read it myself) and I am not
>seeking to slander or incite but merely seeking illumination?
I wouldn't say it was backbiting. As you say, you are seeking
illumination.
>By the way, this is my first time posting so I hope the etiquette is OK in my
>posting to this thread and not starting a new one....
My only comment would be that you should only include those parts of the
previous message to which you are responding. There are people who will
repost a 200 line message and add a one-liner at the top (or, worse
still, the bottom). This, obviously, is annoying but doubly so for
those who live in countries where access is slow and charged for by the
byte.
With love,
Chris.
--
Chris Manvell Tel.:+44(0)1471-822 317
Breacais Iosal, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Fax.:+44(0)870-056 8081
Personal Web site: <www.breacais.demon.co.uk/>
Association of Baha'i Studies (English speaking Europe):
<www.breacais.demon.co.uk/BSR/> and <www.bahai-library.org/bsr/>
Sgriobtiurean Creidimh nam Baha-i (with English Translations)
<http://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/gaelic/>
Brian F. Walker
I was surprised to read that you felt insulted by a recent letter. May
we examine what you said, and assess why?
Frederick Glaysher wrote:
>
> Richard Boyle <ric...@penetics.com> wrote in message
> news:3725ECA2...@penetics.com...
> > Stll the FredBot cannot provide the proof for his slanderous statement,
> except
> > for posting still more references to his homepages.
>
> I consider your reference insulting. Are you
> the Gyr Falcon troll? Where's your "Bahai"
> politeness now?
Reference insulting: I assume you mean being called FredBot. (It will
not refer to the mentioning of your inability to provide references for
your slander.) Mmm ... I can think of more insulting things to be called
than that.
Next you accuse Richard of being someone else, and a troll at that. This
is priceless. You, who can pull any number of aliases out of a hat
(millions agree with me .../ x...@strange.com writes .... ) feel
compelled to accuse Richard? Based on what evidence?? (You know, facts,
that sort of thing.)
Then, after baselessly accusing, having slandered and slithered your way
across this group, you ask about someone else's "Baha'i politeness"?
Fred, I am ROFL. Would you mind just posting your URLs and spam, leaving
out any attempt at meaningful discourse? My diaphragmatic discomfort
demands deliverance, dear Fred.
Still the question is open - why did you feel insulted?
On a serious note here Fred - were you really insulted by what Richard
wrote? There has been much written about you on these NGs, and not much
of it flattering. What was it about being called FredBot that upset you
so? The reason for asking is twofold:
1. That if genuine unhappiness has been caused, we may alter our
behaviour,
2. That if you experience real pain as a result of the written word, you
may yourself appreciate the pain you cause - and take appropriate
action.
Best regards,
Brian
--
_________________________________________________________
Brian F. Walker
bfwk...@netvigator.com
Ron stephens
I have not visited any of these newsgroups in about a year, since I
joined the List, I think. Now, I come here and, try as I might, It's
hard not to be affected by what I read tonight. Do you have any
knowledge about what happened with the dismissal of Mr. Nelson? I also
made the mistake of reading some of what Juan Cole has written about
this incident, and unfortunately clicked on the some things he now says
about you too. While nothing could shake my faith in you in any way, it
does make me wonder what is going on at high levels. Why doesn't the
National Assembly tell us what really happened? This air of total
secrecy is alarming to me.
I know Juan must be very very bitter about all that has happened,
and it colors everything he says now. Still, I find that what he says
specifically about the need to reform our electoral process to be very
convincing. More importantly, I feel that secrecy and the powerful force
that fear instills in people could pretty much kill any chances for
reforms of any kind ever in the administration of the faith. Don't high
level administrators of the faith owe it to us, and to Baha'u'llah, to
uphold the highest standards and try to fix things when they get even a
little out off kilter?
Listening to Juan's diatribes about spies on email lists and such
cause me to recall that Dr Iskander made a post recetnly tpo the Bahai
Studies List that strongly implied that my recent very immoderate posts
on the Baha'i Studies List (which I admit were a little extreme) would
definitely provoke a response from unknown (to me) listeners. What is an
ABM for protection? Are all ABM's for "protection" or just certain ones.
Is this sort of like an inquisition?
I think I'll stay away from these newsgroups . I'm gone for two
weeks anyway after this friday. I know you are busy but a short reply to
this note before then would be nice. I'm not really all that upset
about anything too much..but you got to admit sometimes that this much
smoke sure *seems* to indicate a fire, at least a small one. Wasn't Dr
Iskander comments a not so subtle threat to me? And wouldn't you say
than Juan Cole is not down on Glayesher's level (no one is) but although
bitter Juan probably makes a few good points? And how can a National
Asembly memeber be guilty of gross misconduct? Do you really thnk that
he letter Juan posted is false?
Smaneck
Did you mean to post this to the entire list or did you intend to contact me
privately? Since it was posted I will try and respond as best I can.
You wrote:
>Do you have any
>knowledge about what happened with the dismissal of Mr. Nelson?
Not any special inside information, which is why I have avoided commenting on
this issue. I presume that Steve Scholl's assertion that it had to do with
Judge Nelson placing Huquq funds in an account under his own name is probably
accurate. Whether there is anything more to the story, I don't know. Steve is
married in to the Nelson family and privy to that sort of information. I doubt
if Judge Nelson intended to use any of that money for his own purposes, still a
lawyer should know better. This is was the excuse the IRS used to go after Rev.
Moon. I should add that the practice is common enough that the National Council
of Churches found it necessary to defend Rev. Moon.
The other comments made by Dr. Cole and Mr. Scholl are sheer speculations and
fantastic delusions. There is no evidence of any east/west split on the NSA.
Robert Henderson is from the LA area and Firuz Kazemzadeh lives there now. Nor
is there any real evidence that there was an attempt to manipulate the
elections. Note that both Dorothy Nelson and Robert Henderson recieved an
overwhelmingly majority of the votes, meaning most delegates voted for the both
of them. Hardly a partisan split!
Could the NSA have handled this better? Not knowing all the facts it is hard to
say. I know that had they allowed Judge Nelson to resign quietly for
ill-health, the same people who are now vigorously protesting the way in which
he was publicly humiliated would be screaming that there was a cover-up. So it
is a matter of "damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don't."
>Why doesn't the
>National Assembly tell us what really happened? This air of total
>secrecy is alarming to me.
. Why don't you ask them? Maybe it isn't so secret. Keep in mind that this only
happened a short time ago. Also keep in mind that there are just as many people
who are upset that the NSA was not *more* quiet about this.
>Don't high
>level administrators of the faith owe it to us, and to Baha'u'llah, to
>uphold the highest standards and try to fix things when they get even a
>little out off kilter?
Isn't that what they just attempted to do? I strongly recommend you read the
May 19, 1994 letter from the Universal House of Justice for their "take" on the
standards our NSA ought to uphold. You can find it at the following URL site:
http://bahai-library.org/published.uhj/may.19.letter.html
>More importantly, I feel that secrecy and the powerful force
>that fear instills in people could pretty much kill any chances for
>reforms of any kind ever in the administration of the faith.
It is certainly true that where information is lacking imagination will run
wild and there is plenty of evidence of that! There is a tension Ron, between
the need to have an informed electorate, on the one hand, and the necessity of
insuring that those elected are not subject to political partisan pressures.
IMO we have stressed the latter so much as to make the former next to
impossible. But I'm not sure the best way to fix that without violating that
other principle.
>Dr Iskander made a post recetnly tpo the Bahai
>Studies List that strongly implied that my recent very immoderate posts
>on the Baha'i Studies List (which I admit were a little extreme) would
>definitely provoke a response from unknown (to me) listeners.
I don't think he was talking about anyone spying on you, Ron, nor do I think he
was issuing a threat. I think he was referring to the fact that it might spark
one of those rather ugly, unproductive and accusatory cycles of debate,
challenging your loyalty to the Covenant.
>What is an
>ABM for protection? Are all ABM's for "protection" or just certain ones.
>Is this sort of like an inquisition?
You met with your Auxiliary Board Member for Protection, not long ago. Was it
sort of like an inquisition?
There are two types of Auxiliary Board Members, those for protection and those
for propagation. You might think of the ABMs for Propagation as focusing on
teaching the Faith while those for Protection concentrate on consolidating our
communities and developing our love for the Covenant. They are sometimes called
in when problems arise and people have used this as an excuse to paint them as
inquisitors, etc. (and frankly some ABMs seem to miunderstand their role in
this regard.) They are *not* there to police the thoughts of the believers.
There are times however when someone might bring a post written by a believer
to the attention of the members of the Institutions and you should keep in mind
that anything you post on a list is in the public domain. I think it is safe to
presume that the Institutions are well aware of your confusion on a number of
issues, but you should not feel threatened by this.. Nobody is out to get you.
But if they can help, they would like to.
To be perfectly honest, in your own case I was sorely tempted to forward one of
your posts recently to your ABM Gene Andrews. This was when you posted
something about your "last will and testament." I was afraid you were suicidal
and wanted Gene to check up on you and make sure you were okay. Fortunately, I
figured out that that wasn't the case. Would that have been spying if I had
done this? I don't know, but if it was your life that was at stake, I wouldn't
care.
>Do you really thnk that
>he letter Juan posted is false?
No, the letter is not fake. What is said about it, is another matter. Juan is
not going to forge documents, although he may delete key passages in ways which
are deliberately misleading such as the letter from Counselor Birkland. But I
have every reason to believe that what was posted here represents the full
text. Just ignore the commentary.
with love, Susan
rlit...@my-dejanews.com
Although your letter seems to be directed to an individual, as it was posted
to this public forum, I am taking the liberty of replying. If I overstep any
bounds in any way, please let me know privately.
Your letter seems to deal principally with the issue of faith, either in
another individual Baha'i, or in the Baha'i Faith itself. This ability to have
faith is central to our spiritual existence, in my estimation. As a created
being, we are capable of knowing truth, but we are not capable of knowing all
truth, and to cover those areas which we don't know or understand, we have
faith. It is perhaps as if we can see an outline of reality, given to us by
God, and our faith in Him and His revelation fills in the areas humans at this
time and age are not capable of understanding.
Faith is powerful, yet it is delicate, and susceptible to destruction. Those
things you have been reading, about the Baha'i administrative order, and about
certain individual Baha'is, have served to make you question, to doubt. Ask
yourself: What direct experience do you have which serves to corroborate that
the individuals you have mentioned are anything but devoted Baha'is?
The answer is that you don't know much of anything. The alleged events you
have been reading about just took place, and until you attend a meeting with
your returning convention delegate you won't know anything. Next Feast, there
will be a letter from the Nationial Spiritual Assembly, and the next issue of
Baha'i News will contain a story about this issue, if there is an issue to
discuss. The fact is that aside from reading what another individual says,
you don't KNOW what transpired, based on my understanding of what you have
written.
Rumors frequently have a way of revealing more about the character of the
"mongers" than about the target. I have read numerous statements concerning
Dr. Maneck, who I know only through my participation here on these
newsgroups. I have a choice of what I WISH to believe: I can choose to
believe her own words, which reveal to me the character of a Baha'i I would
like to know better, to have as a friend; or I can choose to believe her
detractors, who have called her some rather evil things.
In your real life as a Baha'i, you have probably discovered that the
administrative order at the local level can sometimes be a test of our faith.
Most Baha'i communities are quite small, and populated with an interesting
mixture of people, some of whom actually know a bit about the Faith of
Baha'u'llah. We elect the best we have to these Spiritual Assemblies, and pray
for everyone. Time and experience improve individuals and communities. As our
communities grow in size and as we go up to higher levels, we get better
Baha'is to represent us. The process requires spiritual maturity on our part,
so that we know the character of those who we are voting for, and not voting
for. Imperfect people in a perfect system. A conundrum?
We are all human, and who among us wouldn't squirm if every fact of our
personal life were made known? So, the question is not whether any of us has
defects or virtues: we all have both. The question is how to relate to each
other, how to deal with each others defects and virtues. The Baha'i writings
clearly spell out how to do these things: Love each other, and have a blind
eye to each others defects. Very simple in theory, and apparently very
difficult to implement.
It's like trying to run a marathon while holding a tray of delicate crystal
glasses, full of water. If that water were your faith, you would be very
careful not to spill it, would be very careful not to let anyone else spill
it, or spill anyone elses.
Well, isn't life a marathon?
Robert A. Little
In article <37310E79...@ibm.net>,
rds...@ibm.net wrote:
> Dear Dr. Maneck
>
> I have not visited any of these newsgroups in about a year, since I
> joined the List, I think. Now, I come here and, try as I might, It's
> hard not to be affected by what I read tonight. Do you have any
> knowledge about what happened with the dismissal of Mr. Nelson? I also
> made the mistake of reading some of what Juan Cole has written about
> this incident, and unfortunately clicked on the some things he now says
> about you too. While nothing could shake my faith in you in any way, it
> does make me wonder what is going on at high levels. Why doesn't the
> National Assembly tell us what really happened? This air of total
> secrecy is alarming to me.
>
> I know Juan must be very very bitter about all that has happened,
> and it colors everything he says now. Still, I find that what he says
> specifically about the need to reform our electoral process to be very
> convincing. More importantly, I feel that secrecy and the powerful force
> that fear instills in people could pretty much kill any chances for
> reforms of any kind ever in the administration of the faith. Don't high
> level administrators of the faith owe it to us, and to Baha'u'llah, to
> uphold the highest standards and try to fix things when they get even a
> little out off kilter?
>
> Listening to Juan's diatribes about spies on email lists and such
> cause me to recall that Dr Iskander made a post recetnly tpo the Bahai
> Studies List that strongly implied that my recent very immoderate posts
> on the Baha'i Studies List (which I admit were a little extreme) would
> definitely provoke a response from unknown (to me) listeners. What is an
> ABM for protection? Are all ABM's for "protection" or just certain ones.
> Is this sort of like an inquisition?
>
> I think I'll stay away from these newsgroups . I'm gone for two
> weeks anyway after this friday. I know you are busy but a short reply to
> this note before then would be nice. I'm not really all that upset
> about anything too much..but you got to admit sometimes that this much
> smoke sure *seems* to indicate a fire, at least a small one. Wasn't Dr
> Iskander comments a not so subtle threat to me? And wouldn't you say
> than Juan Cole is not down on Glayesher's level (no one is) but although
> bitter Juan probably makes a few good points? And how can a National
> Asembly memeber be guilty of gross misconduct? Do you really thnk that
> he letter Juan posted is false?
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Smaneck
>have been reading about just took place, and until you attend a meeting with
>your returning convention delegate you won't know anything. Next Feast, there
>will be a letter from the Nationial Spiritual Assembly, and the next issue of
>Baha'i News will contain a story about this issue, if there is an issue to
>discuss.
Dear Robert,
What you say is quite true. In the instant gratification of virtual reality we
sometimes forget how long it takes for things to happen in the real world. With
the advent of cyberspace news and rumor are spread much faster than
administrators can often ascertain or communicate facts. For instance, recently
a problem arose regarding the way a meeting with some ABMs had been conducted.
Before the Counselor supervising these Board Members had received their reports
his mailbox was jammed packed with email messages on the situation (I confess,
I was the main culprit here.) . All too often we assume our Institutions are
unresponsive when either we haven't given them time to respond, or in some
cases we haven't even asked them the question! It seems those of us with the
strongest reservations about the meaning of Divine Guidance and infallibility
are the most intolerant of any mistakes whatsoever on the part of the
Institutions. We are like adolescents, constantly insisting their parents are
ignorant and wrong, but then when their parents really do do something which
shows they are far from perfect, these same teenagers become utterly dismayed.
That's not all bad, though. It demonstrates how much they still matter.
>As a created
>being, we are capable of knowing truth, but we are not capable of knowing all
>truth, and to cover those areas which we don't know or understand, we have
>faith.
My experience is that it is not our questions which create doubts. It is
guessing the answers. IMO this is what the Writings mean when they refer to
the dangers of fallling prey to our "vain imaginings." The remedy to this is to
have enough faith to *ask.*
Susan Stiles Maneck
History, Stetson University
Chris Manvell
>All too often we assume our Institutions are
>unresponsive when either we haven't given them time to respond, or in some
>cases we haven't even asked them the question!
Dear Susan,
A couple of years ago out beloved National Spiritual Assembly made it
clear, through the UK Baha'i Journal, that e-mail messages would be
dealt with in the same way as normal letters. It was not that long ago
when the sending of a fax would elicit an immediate response. Then e-
mail had a similar effect until, like the fax, it became commonplace.
However, the speed of transmission should have no bearing on the
prioritisation of the message.
Brings to mind the number of times I was made to wait in a shop because
someone had decided to ring them to place their order. The general
feeling was that the person phoning should be made to wait their turn!
All the best,
Ron stephens
post to Dr. Maneck (and even as a private post I admit it was a
mistake). I apologize to anyone if I have embarrassed anyone. It is
entirely my mistake and there is no excuse for it. I agree with what
Robert and Dr Maneck have said here in reply though: things just happen
too darn fast sometimes in cyberworld; and after a long absence from
this particular newsgroup, I was just a little overwhelmed. I do not
want to continue this thread and I have full faith in the Baha'i
institutions to deal with these matters.
Dr. Maneck is correct about one other thing she mentions here. As
one who sometimes worries about things like infallibility, I probably
over-react whenever any hint of humanity comes forth from our beloved
institutions. So it means they really mean a lot to me. A whole lot. I
want perfection, but they are human, and I know it. Certainly , they are
better than anything else out there, and I thank God for them. And one
last time, I apologize to all. For the record, I have high opinions and
great respect for everyone involved (except for myself who goofed) ;-)
End of thread, for my part. No more, nada, kaput, that's it. If
anyone has cross posted my original mistaken post, perhaps in fairness
they should also cross post this apology to close the matter. It would
seem only fair.
In closing, I will have no more to say about this matter. If anyone
wants to know what I really think about infallibility, when I take time
and thought to do it right, please see my web site where I cover this
topic as part of my Baha'i apologetics testimonial at
http://www.geocities.com/~aaaware/chronicles3.html
Allah'u'abha and God bless you all. And let's lighten up a little
and try to be actually friendly to each other, sort of like we are all
God's children and we love each other, OK?
Ron Stephens
rds...@ibm.net
Robert wrote to me:
>The alleged events you
>have been reading about just took place, and until you attend a meeting
with
>your returning convention delegate you won't know anything. Next Feast,
there
>will be a letter from the Nationial Spiritual Assembly, and the next
issue of
>Baha'i News will contain a story about this issue, if there is an issue
to
>discuss.
Susan Maneck replied:
Dear Robert,
What you say is quite true. In the instant gratification of virtual
reality we
sometimes forget how long it takes for things to happen in the real
world. With
the advent of cyberspace news and rumor are spread much faster than
administrators can often ascertain or communicate facts. For instance,
recently
a problem arose regarding the way a meeting with some ABMs had been
conducted.
Before the Counselor supervising these Board Members had received their
reports
his mailbox was jammed packed with email messages on the situation (I
confess,
I was the main culprit here.) . All too often we assume our Institutions
are
unresponsive when either we haven't given them time to respond, or in
some
cases we haven't even asked them the question! It seems those of us with
the
strongest reservations about the meaning of Divine Guidance and
infallibility
are the most intolerant of any mistakes whatsoever on the part of the
Institutions. We are like adolescents, constantly insisting their
parents are
ignorant and wrong, but then when their parents really do do something
which
shows they are far from perfect, these same teenagers become utterly
dismayed.
That's not all bad, though. It demonstrates how much they still matter.
>As a created
>being, we are capable of knowing truth, but we are not capable of
knowing all
>truth, and to cover those areas which we don't know or understand, we
have
>faith.
My experience is that it is not our questions which create doubts. It is
jri...@my-dejanews.com
not under the direct control of the Baha'i institutions is not that the
community is small. It is that the imposition of prepublication censorship
("review") and the secret doctrine among administrators that no independent
media should be allowed have made this development impossible. The big
attacks on independent media, such as the Los Angeles Study Class Newsletter,
Dialogue Magazine, and tali...@indiana.edu, have rather thinned out the
genre. These attacks were ordered and coordinated by members of the US
national spiritual assembly and the universal house of justice. It goes
right to the center. Cyberspace is increasingly making such crackdowns
impossible, however. I think the Baha'i faith will benefit as a result.
cheers Juan
In article <925411095.50728.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
"macleod" <mac...@beloved.com> wrote:
> The less reliable information
> that's available on any subject the more inclination to spread and believe
> rumours. Nothing kills a rumour quicker than a well documented truth. Now
> the Bahai administration, in my opinion, is a relatively closed, secretive
> society. Deliberations are not made public, trials are without jury or
> public presentation of verdicts, and decisions do not have to be justified
> when announced (though they sometimes are). In addition, partly due to our
> current small numbers, there is no independant media of any significance.
--
Juan Cole, History, U of Michigan, jrc...@umich.edu
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm
Buy *Modernity and the Millennium: The Genesis of the Baha'i Faith* at:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0231110812/002-4036721-8058448
jri...@my-dejanews.com
to the delegates was *itself* a very sleazy form of backbiting. It is vague
and full of innuendo. Discussing the letter and trying to clarify it is not
backbiting, but rather the opposite. For all we know that process could
clear Jim Nelson's reputation, which Henderson smeared.
There isn't any public organization in the U.S. of 60,000 adults where the
chair could be summarily dismissed in this way with a vague letter and no
further explanations given. This is absolutely shameful, and raises all
sorts of questions--was it a form of electioneering? Who benefits?
By the way, if *I* had said in March that the chair of the NSA needed to make
reparations because he was grossly negligent, the way Henderson has, all the
rightwingers and kneejerk loyalists would have denied it was possible. You
would have said the NSA is divinely guided and perfect.
I mean, I've been saying for some time now that the US NSA is secretive,
authoritarian and corrupt. I don't see how it can be denied that this whole
incident is at least some evidence for at least some of these propositions!
And yet you all want to go on denying the obvious reality and blaming the
messenger.
And now that the Baha'is have been able to "ask their delegates," what do the
delegates say? Anything substantive? Of course not.
cheers Juan
In article <37279E97...@earthlink.net>,
saman-...@usa.net wrote:
re.
>
> In the Kitab-i-Aqdas, K19, Baha'u'llah writes:
>
> "Ye have been forbidden to commit murder or adultry, or to
> engage in backbiting or calumny; shun ye, then, what hath
> been prohibited in the holy Books and Tablets."
>
> I think it is telling that Baha'u'llah, in my view, seems to
> equate backbiting to murder and calumny to adultry.
>
> Baha'is will have a chance to ask questions from their respective
> delegates during the meeting at which each delegate gives
> a report of the National Convention. Speculation on a public
> forum is not going to result in any good.
>
> -saman
>
>
--
Steven Varner
> These attacks were ordered and coordinated by members of the US
> national spiritual assembly and the universal house of justice. It goes
> right to the center. Cyberspace is increasingly making such crackdowns
> impossible, however. I think the Baha'i faith will benefit as a result.
The "center" is the only hope for the progress of the Cause of God. Without
obediance to the Covenant, your faith is useless and without meaning.
"Now some of the mischief-makers, with many stratagems, are seeking
leadership, and in order to reach this position they instill doubts among the
friends that they may cause differences, and that these differences may result
in their drawing a party to themselves. But the friends of God must be awake and
must know that the scattering of these doubts hath as its motive personal
desires and the achievement of leadership.
Do not disrupt Bahá'í unity, and know that this unity cannot be maintained
save through faith in the Covenant of God."
Selections from the Writngs of Abdu'l-Baha', p. 214
"O ye beloved of the Lord! On one side the standard of the One True God is
unfurled and the Voice of the Kingdom raised. The Cause of God is spreading, and
manifest in splendour are the wonders from on high. The east is illumined and
the west perfumed; fragrant with ambergris is the north, and musk-scented the
south.
On the other side the faithless wax in hate and rancour, ceaselessly
stirring up grievous sedition and mischief. No day goeth by but someone raiseth
the standard of revolt and spurreth his charger into the arena of discord. No
hour passeth but the vile adder bareth its fangs and scattereth its deadly
venom."
ibid, p. 314
Rachel Hoff
number of independent Baha'i publishers, including Stonehaven Press,
Palabra, Special Ideas, Naturegraph, to name but a few. AFAIK there have
been no efforts to quash them. I think that perhaps one finds what one looks
for (and I'm referring to you and me both).
<jri...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:7gvmgv$1jt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> The reason for which there are no independent media in the Baha'i
community
> not under the direct control of the Baha'i institutions is not that the
> community is small. It is that the imposition of prepublication
censorship
> ("review") and the secret doctrine among administrators that no
independent
> media should be allowed have made this development impossible. The big
> attacks on independent media, such as the Los Angeles Study Class
Newsletter,
> Dialogue Magazine, and tali...@indiana.edu, have rather thinned out the
> genre. These attacks were ordered and coordinated by members of the US
> national spiritual assembly and the universal house of justice. It goes
> right to the center. Cyberspace is increasingly making such crackdowns
> impossible, however. I think the Baha'i faith will benefit as a result.
>
> cheers Juan
>
> In article <925411095.50728.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> "macleod" <mac...@beloved.com> wrote:
> > The less reliable information
> > that's available on any subject the more inclination to spread and
believe
> > rumours. Nothing kills a rumour quicker than a well documented truth.
Now
> > the Bahai administration, in my opinion, is a relatively closed,
secretive
> > society. Deliberations are not made public, trials are without jury or
> > public presentation of verdicts, and decisions do not have to be
justified
> > when announced (though they sometimes are). In addition, partly due to
our
> > current small numbers, there is no independant media of any
significance.
>
Brian F. Walker
May I look at what you write from another perspective? You have problems
with a closed media within the Baha'i faith, and press the need for
openness in research and publication. I accept this need absolutely in
the case of a secular government (Oliver North, Watergate etc) as I
absolutely mistrust any politician. My concern is that we deal then with
the Baha'i institutions in exactly the same manner as with a western
government.
Is this good?
I mean, let us assume that Baha'u'llah is from God, and that what He has
created is created by God. If that is so, then the UHJ that Baha'u'llah
created is what we see today, because it was the Will of God. (Otherwise
we must say that the Baha'i faith, which Baha'u'llah promised us, has
failed, and therefore God has failed.) Let us assume this anyway.
Now look at the fate of previous religions, which were torn apart not by
the teachings of the Messengers of God, but by the blindness of mortals
who thought they knew better what was intended by the Messenger.
Proposition:
Is it not therefore conceivable that the UHJ is in fact protecting the
faith from the fate of all past Dispensations, and that efforts to
undermine the UHJ in this respect are in fact working against God?
I do not say that this is so, I simply ask whether the proposition is
possible. If so, then then it bears close examination. If not, then it
brings into doubt the validity of Baha'u'llahs Dispensation.
Best regards,
Brian
--
Saman Ahmadi
jri...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> What I don't understand, Saman, is why you can't see that Henderson's letter
> to the delegates was *itself* a very sleazy form of backbiting. It is vague
> and full of innuendo. Discussing the letter and trying to clarify it is not
> backbiting, but rather the opposite. For all we know that process could
> clear Jim Nelson's reputation, which Henderson smeared.
The delegate from our unit will present a report of the National Convention
on May 13th. I personally have a lot of questions. To state anything
on a public forum without knowing more information is not constructive.
I will say this: I am not sure how a letter from the NSA to delegates made
it on a public forum. I myself first heard of news, without soliciting it, from
someone who was not a delegate but learned of it somehow.
As a general rule I'd rather either know nothing or know everything.
>
>
> There isn't any public organization in the U.S. of 60,000 adults where the
> chair could be summarily dismissed in this way with a vague letter and no
> further explanations given. This is absolutely shameful, and raises all
> sorts of questions--was it a form of electioneering? Who benefits?
>
> By the way, if *I* had said in March that the chair of the NSA needed to make
> reparations because he was grossly negligent, the way Henderson has, all the
> rightwingers and kneejerk loyalists would have denied it was possible. You
> would have said the NSA is divinely guided and perfect.
There is a difference between the NSA calling one of its members grossly
negligent and
an individual calling an NSA member grossly negligent - the NSA might be privy
to information
that individuals are not. You would be asking me to accept something "through
the
eyes of others" - you, as historian, would never do that.
Having said that, an individual, I think, has the right, if he is so moved, to
call an NSA
member grossly negligent, but not on a public forum. He can write to the NSA,
to the
Auxiliary Board for Protection, the Continental Board of Counselors or the House
of Justice.
Even the US NSA, I don't think, thinks of itself as "perfect". There is no
scriptural
basis for thinking that a Secondary House of Justice is perfect. Abdul Baha's
instruction
for following an Assembly's decision is, in my view, so that if a decision is
wrong, when
it has the full support of the community, that wrong will be noticed much faster
than
when time is spent arguing over an already made decision.
>
> I mean, I've been saying for some time now that the US NSA is secretive,
> authoritarian and corrupt. I don't see how it can be denied that this whole
> incident is at least some evidence for at least some of these propositions!
> And yet you all want to go on denying the obvious reality and blaming the
> messenger.
>
>
> And now that the Baha'is have been able to "ask their delegates," what do the
> delegates say? Anything substantive? Of course not.
>
I'll give you an answer next week.
-saman
jri...@my-dejanews.com
Dear Brian:
You wrote:
In article <3733B680...@netvigator.com>,
"Brian F. Walker" <bfwk...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> You have problems
> with a closed media within the Baha'i faith, and press the need for
> openness in research and publication.
This is true. I believe that the Baha'i faith has been woefully stunted by
the repressive policies of Baha'i administrators, and believe that if this
repression could be lifted, the faith would have the opportunity *genuinely*
to grow and become more influential. (Rather than our simply publishing
ever-growing and completely phoney membership statistics that are obviously
inflated).
>I accept this need absolutely in
> the case of a secular government (Oliver North, Watergate etc) as I
> absolutely mistrust any politician.
I am afraid that my observation of the Baha'i power elite during the past 25
years has convinced me that most of them are "politicians" in precisely the
sense that you use the term. They subtley "run" for office. They seek to
rise in the organization. They repress for the purpose of keeping their
jobs. And they at least sometimes appropriate the organization's resources
for their personal use. Therefore, you need a free press to keep your eye on
them in precisely the same way you do with regard to secular politicians. A
long-serving LSA member in Phoenix recently stole $70,000 from the fund, and
this was only discovered when another LSA member finally reported on her.
Wouldn't it have been better to have more vigilance earlier from the whole
community?
>My concern is that we deal then with
> the Baha'i institutions in exactly the same manner as with a western
> government.
Assuming that every Baha'i administrator is an angel would be a tragic
miscalculation. The Baha'i faith is a small and little-known movement, and
is not closely watched by the rest of society. Its administration vaunts
itself as divinely guided and above all criticism. Its administration is
therefore the perfect place for persons of a cult-like turn of mind to hide
out, and from which to abuse believers either psychologically or materially.
Many Baha'i administrators, of course, are honest, nurturing, upright
persons. But they need not fear, then, a free Baha'i press.
> I mean, let us assume that Baha'u'llah is from God, and that what He has
> created is created by God. If that is so, then the UHJ that Baha'u'llah
> created is what we see today, because it was the Will of God.
These propositions are full of logical fallacies. Baha'u'llah was from God,
but he did not create Douglas Martin or Robert C. Henderson. They claim to
be his followers. They may or may not really be his followers. I'm not
ready to blame Baha'u'llah for any mistakes they may make. Are you?
Baha'u'llah did create the institution of the Universal House of Justice.
But he never said it was infallible. Moreover, he strictly forbade it from
interfering matters like individuals' personal theology, which would fall
under `ibadat in Ishraq 8. Shoghi Effendi also points out that the UHJ is not
to attempt to interpret scripture authoritatively.
So, let us look at this logically. There is no Guardian. The guardianship
was the sole institution authorized to interpret scripture. So, when a
national spiritual assembly demands the right to vet what you want to publish
about the Baha'i faith, on what basis is it doing so? If it says your
interpretation is incorrect, is it not illegitimately claiming the right to
interpret scripture authoritatively? And to whom could you appeal, since
*no* body has that right at present? You can't blame 'literature review' on
Baha'u'llah. He did not create it and never mentioned it. And while
`Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi, as authorized Interpreters, were within their
rights to devolve some of that interpretive authority onto NSAs in their
lifetimes, they were secure in the knowledge that an appeal would come to
them, i.e., to a person with standing.
(Otherwise
> we must say that the Baha'i faith, which Baha'u'llah promised us, has
> failed, and therefore God has failed.) Let us assume this anyway.
All or nothing arguments are always a form of logical fallacy. It may be that
the Baha'i faith has failed to mature as quickly as Baha'u'llah would have
liked. That wouldn't be his fault, would it? It would be ours. Nor is an
overly slow pace of development a complete failure. It is an indication that
the pace should pick up.
> Now look at the fate of previous religions, which were torn apart not by
> the teachings of the Messengers of God, but by the blindness of mortals
> who thought they knew better what was intended by the Messenger.
In other words, by priests and popes and ayatollahs--the officials of the
religion. And, of course, the equivalent in the Baha'i faith are counselors
and the Universal House of Justice. Catholics believe that the popes are
infallible, even though many of them committed great crimes. Baha'is believe
that the UHJ is infallible, even though it has demonstrably acted at times in
ways that contravene Baha'u'llah's basic principles. This doesn't mean we
should abandon all hope in it. It does mean we should work for ever greater
implementation of Baha'u'llah's principles of tolerance and justice.
> Proposition:
> Is it not therefore conceivable that the UHJ is in fact protecting the
> faith from the fate of all past Dispensations, and that efforts to
> undermine the UHJ in this respect are in fact working against God?
The UHJ has managed to bring in 2,000 Frenchmen into the Baha'i faith, a
similar number of Germans, a few hundred Spaniards and Portuguese and Dutch.
Partially because of its policies the real number of Western Baha'is in the
US has been stagnant for 20 years. If it were having a really great success
in developed countries, you could say that one shouldn't tinker with a
winning formula. But with this kind of record, it seems to me it is time for
*someone* to point out what isn't working.
> I do not say that this is so, I simply ask whether the proposition is
> possible. If so, then then it bears close examination. If not, then it
> brings into doubt the validity of Baha'u'llahs Dispensation.
I think a concern with schism is a non-trivial issue. But when it gets to
the point where people are looking for covenant breakers under the bed or
when major academics like anthropologist Linda Walbridge are being called up
late at night by counselors at the behest of the UHJ and threatened with
being shunned for their email messages, then you've taken this concern too
far. In fact, the best hope for unity is a big tent. If you make room for
Baha'i liberals and for freedom of expression, you can hope to keep the
movement united in its diversity. If you go about alienating Baha'is of a
particular stripe, you in fact lose their respect and loyalty. Because all
of us liberals are loyal to the principle of unity and abhor schism, nothing
bad has happened. But it could is only because Baha'i liberals are sincere
and are bewildered at being persecuted by their own institutions.
cheers Juan
rlit...@my-dejanews.com
As to the matter of the perfection/imperfection of the secondary Houses of
Justice (National Spiritual Assembly at present), we have the example of the
National Spiritual Assembly of France (1961?). It was disbanded by the Hands
of the Cause of God over the matter of Charles Mason Remey.
I dislike the idea of perfection in this regards, as it seems to me to remove
responsibility from our shoulders, make us children. My understanding of the
Bahai Faith is that humans are now finally being asked to assume full
responsibility for their spiritual lives. Spiritually mature individuals will
attempt to abide by the will of God, but will not always "hit the mark". The
Writings clearly say that through unity of action and purpose, the community
will reveal the (un)wisdom of decisions, making it possible to correct those
which stray from the bullseye. We are feeling our way forward on a path never
before trod, and we are going to misstep from time to time. We must keep our
eyes open, pray a lot, and we'll be fine. Baha'u'llah says so. <grin>
This concept of knitting together obedience and reason is fascinating to me.
It is like a narrow path, with the blind following the corrupt to one side,
and the 31st Street Baha'i Reformed Congregation of Central City (not
affiliated with the 31st Street Baha'i Reformed Circle) to the other.
There are individuals here who claim that the Faith has strayed off that
path. I tend to dislike the claims, and mistrust the motives of the claimants
who are usually bitter or angry as a result of their contact with other
Baha'is. It is a sort of rookie mistake to allow the actions of another
person, Baha'i or not, to come between yourself and God and turn your love
sour. I know that my own community has stumbled, and I know that the act of
stumbling tends to sharpen the concentration. Our community is much stronger
now as a result, and moving forward toward the next stumble.
I guess the real question we must be prepared to answer is "How will we
respond when mistakes or failures inevitably happen?"
Robert A. Little
In article <3733CDDB...@earthlink.net>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Smaneck
>was the sole institution authorized to interpret scripture. So, when a
>national spiritual assembly demands the right to vet what you want to publish
>about the Baha'i faith, on what basis is it doing so?
Let's look at it more logically. If review were a means of exercising
"authoritative interpretations" why would 'Abdu'l-Baha have submitted His own
work to review before allowing it to be published? Review has always been done
by committees according to the 'Abdu'l-Baha's direction, never by an authorized
interpreter.
wild...@peconic.net
wrote:
could he have been taken up on don juan esp lines and is going through
initiation of martyrdom living..and long suffering ,,holy grailing.
of the bardos of love ...of the bahai book of death ..like
the tibetan or egyptian book of the death...the seventh valley
of utter poverty and essential nothingness...to see perhaps
what happen to me...and some other bahais...
that went into the abyss for god...
and teaching the bahai faith and how
don juan and the feathered serpants of the world
the magical mystery makers of the healings of the ills
of the green earth gaia...mystics of all religions..
some from each culture country...that complement the
father ,,,the mother , the earth aboriginal one...
be it indian...west. or east..such as maharishi s gang..
all the ones krisha included returned to update
what was taught in the mysteries. back then...
..through maharishi now too...this goes for each and every
country there are those illuminated ones that
abdul baha especially loves now that teach
the mysteries of love according to the fundamental
Source back then they renew their religion just
so their people can find their way to baha ullahs tent..
their religion is renewed through the spritual winds
of bahaullahs teachings and causes new religious
teachers to rise up among the believers of that
particular faith...to be close to god again so
to make the last step to the valley of utter poverty
and essential nothingness beyond light and love
even..thru the darkness..His Face shines on everything
everywhere...like this...i see Bahaullah in Don Juans
Face...I see it in Maharishis face..why I see it
in Deli Lamas Buddas Face...I see it in Ron Hubbards Face..
the western budda or confucious..
I see Bahaullah even in Carlos Face ...today I see it
in Rons face ..i know you....I know and Love your
father ...ron ...he , Ken Stephens , an elder of the Morman
Faith in salt lake taught me one thing
that Joeseph Smith is the One ...who loves angels
and recieved direct revelation from One...in the 1800s
near the Babs revelation...where he talked to the angel
and recieve golden tablets...saying the Indians are the Ones
from Atlantis who may in the past misused this esp related
pyramidal sorciety magical dreaming that is reborn again
that i am a hard love prisoner of ...Faizi the hand of the cause
he knows the Pharoahs..why I even met Him when he was
in reno...long ago in the 70s...
he came to the university...He trains me in the bardos rules
and mechanics..along with cc and don juan and all the other
ones i mentioned above...with abdulbaha...it is the void
of the abyss of the collective mind..
of the building of the new earth and heaven it is the arena
where major players act out the worlds ills and resolute them
to the best that they can causeing the information to be release
giving the best of the earth a way to find peace among the
discord out there...
lesser peace is our goal...
so before the damage goes out the door of infinity of the
consciousness
of the collective mind of mankind it comes here
and judge nelson would be very welcome to come here
and help out for this is the pits of hell..with the anti nagual
and the anti christ and the anti anything else danced
out with the players ,,,,that dance in the arena..of don juan,
being the major teachers of love...and their oppositions as well..
this is hard to understand but it is happening..
the indians are the source of the spiritual deep well of gifts...
having had the wisdom over many millenium years of keeping
the secrets of the great spirit..and how it works restoring ballance
in the dreamings of each bon fire of the lokatas
each clan has their own dreamings ...kevin locke is the one
from sitting bulls clan ..He sitting bull is a prophet of a feather
serpant kind..with his own dreamings that reflect the truth
for him...
they kept the secret well guarded how to do and use the
magic of the seer dreaming of the old pyramidal sorciety
esp dreaming of bardic healing and great spirit balancing
and restoring harmony that don juan teaches by experience
as he did to carlos castaneda...in the 70.s and now me..
and others as well...i could name quite a few...
holy spirit ones who are saint like and enduring this
some not quite awake in this bardic training or the
esp connection of stone people ways of flying around
like the shapeshifting atlantian heritage indians...
that we love so very much...
of mayan , toltec ,,inca and american indians as well..
india , ancient rama krisna knows all of this..
elusian mysteries is about this too.
pyramid technologies of the egyptians are not new at this
either as faizi hand of the cause knows...
Please if Ken Is still here on the earth please say hello..
vicki bonds
victoria bonds
wild wings..
a don juaner feathered serpant lover and follower
working on bringing Him the Indian messiah
returned of the 12th missing tribe of isreal home to
baha ullah on Mt carmel where all the religions
gather in unity and deversity
under the tent of the Glory of the Father
in the Holiest of Spirit...
the separate line of Quatalcoatl and his disciples
fit in as the 12th tribe missing.. to be returned
at the end of time up the kings hill ...to see the bab
and go under the tent of baha ullah...on mt carmel...
>
>Ron Stephens
>rds...@ibm.net
>
>
>
>
>Robert wrote to me:
>
>>The alleged events you
>>have been reading about just took place, and until you attend a meeting
>with
>>your returning convention delegate you won't know anything. Next Feast,
>there
>>will be a letter from the Nationial Spiritual Assembly, and the next
>issue of
>>Baha'i News will contain a story about this issue, if there is an issue
>to
>>discuss.
>>As a created
>>being, we are capable of knowing truth, but we are not capable of
>knowing all
>>truth, and to cover those areas which we don't know or understand, we
>have
>>faith.
>
plane...@my-dejanews.com
jri...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> A
> long-serving LSA member in Phoenix recently stole $70,000 from the
fund, and
> this was only discovered when another LSA member finally reported on
her.
> Wouldn't it have been better to have more vigilance earlier from the
whole
> community?
Not sure what you're getting at here, Juan. You're critical of the
Baha'i administration employing "Big Brother" type tactics, but yet that
seems what you're calling for here. Not only that, but I don't think
you can honestly state that having more 'vigilance' would have prevented
this at all from happening. This was an individual's moral failing, and
unless you are going to argue that the (supposed) laxity in
fellow-Baha'i watching implicitly corrupts people, which is quite
frankly preposterous, you have no valid argument.
By the way, I am from the Phoenix area, and I know more probably than
anyone else on this forum what happened in this situation. Just so you
know, you have the dollar amount wrong. (see how easy it is to get
'facts' wrong?) But that is neither here nor there.
The crux of this is that it seems you suggest more checking up on
individuals to ensure they're doing the 'right thing' would have
prevented this and other things? You're starting to really confuse me.
jeff
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Chris Manvell
>By the way, I am from the Phoenix area, and I know more probably than
>anyone else on this forum what happened in this situation. Just so you
>know, you have the dollar amount wrong. (see how easy it is to get
>'facts' wrong?) But that is neither here nor there.
How on earth did they get away with it in the first place. Your (the US)
Treasurer's manual state's quite clearly that every contribution must be
receipted, and the LSA should have financial reports at every meeting.
Rick Schaut
<jri...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:7h0nq3$smi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I am afraid that my observation of the Baha'i power elite during the past
25
> years has convinced me that most of them are "politicians" in precisely
the
> sense that you use the term.
Well, if you want to call the act of interpreting some data to fit a
preconceived notion while ignoring other data an "observation", then one
could reach such a conclusion. Such a conclusion is, however, neither
scientific nor reasonable.
> A
> long-serving LSA member in Phoenix recently stole $70,000 from the fund,
and
> this was only discovered when another LSA member finally reported on her.
> Wouldn't it have been better to have more vigilance earlier from the whole
> community?
While this may well be an argument in favor of more frequent audits, it's
not entirely obvious that any form of "public" oversight would have been any
"better" in some objective way.
> Assuming that every Baha'i administrator is an angel would be a tragic
> miscalculation.
I don't know anyone who asserts this, nor is it an assumption that is
required in order to accept the notion that public, vicious criticism ought
to be rejected in favor of a process that enables anyone to raise any issue
they wish within the channels that are provided. That Dr. Cole has to
resort to such a statement at the outset of his argument speaks loudly as to
the validity of the rest of his remarks.
> The Baha'i faith is a small and little-known movement, and
> is not closely watched by the rest of society. Its administration vaunts
> itself as divinely guided and above all criticism.
Again, an assertion that is boldly beyond the truth. No administrative
institution claims for itself any form of Divine guidance. Whatever Divine
guidance has been granted to any of the institutions of the Faith has been
explicitly granted in texts the authority of which is traced directly to
Baha'u'llah's pen.
> These propositions are full of logical fallacies.
If this is referent to Dr. Cole's propositions, then I couldn't agree more.
> So, let us look at this logically. There is no Guardian. The
guardianship
> was the sole institution authorized to interpret scripture. So, when a
> national spiritual assembly demands the right to vet what you want to
publish
> about the Baha'i faith, on what basis is it doing so?
To preclude someone who doesn't have the authority to interpret the Writings
from publishing something that demands that his or her individual
interpretation ought to be given some authority. Seems rather simple to me.
> > Now look at the fate of previous religions, which were torn apart not by
> > the teachings of the Messengers of God, but by the blindness of mortals
> > who thought they knew better what was intended by the Messenger.
> In other words, by priests and popes and ayatollahs--the officials of the
> religion.
Which is why the Baha'i Faith presently practices pre-publication review--to
preclude persons with a number of letters after their names from assuming
some position of interpretational authority--from becoming a priesthood.
Now, Dr. Cole will claim that he has never done this. The truth is quite
otherwise as I am willing to attest.
> The UHJ has managed to bring in 2,000 Frenchmen into the Baha'i faith, a
> similar number of Germans, a few hundred Spaniards and Portuguese and
Dutch.
Actually, the Universal House of Justice hasn't brought a single person into
the Faith since the first election in 1963. Teaching is work done by
_individuals_ not institutions.
> If it were having a really great success
> in developed countries, you could say that one shouldn't tinker with a
> winning formula. But with this kind of record, it seems to me it is time
for
> *someone* to point out what isn't working.
Except that, in developed countries, the individuals have been spending too
much time moaning and crying about how their views don't get enough cachet
in the Baha'i world and not enough time actually doing what the Universal
House of Justice has asked them to do.
> I think a concern with schism is a non-trivial issue.
It does amaze me that Dr. Cole can say this and, within the very same
paragraph, trivialize the issue by saying:
> In fact, the best hope for unity is a big tent.
Unless you make the tent all-inclusive, and one would be hard-pressed to
define the Baha'i tent as being all-inclusive, then this does trivialize the
issue. All one ends up with is the complaint that, from one's own point of
view, the tent isn't big enough. This despite the fact that none but those
institutions that Baha'u'llah has established has any authority to define
how big that tent ought to be.
> If you go about alienating Baha'is of a
> particular stripe, you in fact lose their respect and loyalty. Because all
> of us liberals are loyal to the principle of unity and abhor schism,
nothing
> bad has happened.
The above is self-contradictory. By defining oneself as "liberal" one is
creating schism. One cannot possibly "abhor" schism and then define oneself
as being within a class that's different from the whole. This is the big
lie, and probably constitutes a self-decpetion of the highest order.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
plane...@my-dejanews.com
breathing humans, the implementation of the contents of manuals, however
perfect in form, will be imperfectly carried out by us mere humans.
For example, haven't you ever been to a Feast where the treasurer, for
whatever reason, did not have the current local fund figures? I
shouldn't need to elaborate on this point.
(my observations, not facts)
A few years ago the Grand Canyon Baha'i Conference generated large
amounts of money for the Arc through fundraisers at the conference. I
believe the amounts took the Phoenix LSA by surprise, and they were not
adequately prepared to manage such a large influx of money. Worse, the
responsibility to account for it was carried by one person, the LSA
treasurer. I believe the accounting/auditing should have been performed
by a committee or other group of individuals, but for whatever reason,
it wasn't. The LSA temporarily overlooked the backlog of accounting
that needed to be done, probably in part due to having to start working
on the next conference almost as soon as the previous one was done. And
unfortunately, someone fell to temptation in this situation of financial
confusion.
My point is that while better implemented checks and balances could have
discouraged such a thing from happening, they don't by themselves
inherently prevent such things from happening. At some point, it is
ultimately a matter of the individual's morality. No matter how good
the 'legal' system, there are people who will try to flaunt it and get
away with it.
So, in this case, I would disagree with you when you say they "got away
with it". If they had, we'd never have known about it. Instead, the
person was caught and punished, which to me means that something in the
system is actually working. Sure, finding out about it was delayed due
to shoddy accounting practices, but that is easily fixable.
Heck, if the Baha'i Faith is supposed to turn us all into perfect,
law-abiding citizens, then there wouldn't be any need for Baha'u'llah to
have stated punishments within the Faith.
cheers,
jeff
In article <$sljoBA7...@breacais.demon.co.uk>,
jri...@my-dejanews.com
Dear Jeff:
I really appreciate your openness and frankness and obvious probity. It
is a breath of fresh air!
But what I don't understand is that when "members of the Institutions"
embezzle $91,000, then all of a sudden they are "just human," and
"mistakes were made," and the "manual wasn't implemented."
But when anyone suggests in the abstract that maybe the "members of the
Institutions" should be subjected to a little more scrutiny, a little
more accountability, then all of a sudden they are "divinely guided,"
"not accountable to the electorate," "representatives of a New World
Order," "working for a better way of doing things," etc.
I've never even been able to get most Baha'is even to consider that the
various crackdowns, on *dialogue* magazine, MacEoin, the Baha'i
Encyclopedia, and tali...@indiana.edu might have been abuses of power
on the part of members of Baha'i institutions far more egregious than
pilfering a little money.
The fact is, that if a member of the Phoenix Baha'i community, even
today, asked to see the LSA's books, he might as well put in an
application to have his administrative rights removed. If you foster an
attitude in people that their "Institutions" are perfect, infallible,
unchallengeable, etc., then you also--without meaning to--create a
situation in which members of those Institutions face enormous
temptations to take advantage of believers.
Just a little recognition that members of the Institutions are fallible
humans (and yes, this applies to counselors and the UHJ as well), and
the fostering of a truly egalitarian and consultative spirit, would go a
long way toward alleviating these problems.
It was said some time ago. It is still true. And it is more true in
the Baha'i system than anywhere else. Power corrupts. Absolute power
corrupts absolutely.
cheers Juan
In article <7hct66$sgg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
plane...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Chris, until such time as manuals are magically turned into living,
> breathing humans, the implementation of the contents of manuals,
however
> perfect in form, will be imperfectly carried out by us mere humans.
>
--
Juan Cole, History, U of Michigan, jrc...@umich.edu
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm
Buy *Modernity and the Millennium: The Genesis of the Baha'i Faith* at:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0231110812/002-4036721-8058448
Patrick Henry
in St. Louis approximately around 1992 in which
the Bahai community treasurer stole $10,000 from
the fund and then disappeared.
There have definitely been other such incidents.
--
Patrick Henry
"Give me liberty, or give me death."
Patric...@bigfoot.com
<jri...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:7hfm0f$24j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> --
> Juan Cole, History, U of Michigan, jrc...@umich.edu
> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm
> Buy *Modernity and the Millennium: The Genesis of the Baha'i Faith* at:
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0231110812/002-4036721-8058448
>
>
plane...@my-dejanews.com
You're very welcome!
I've no argument with what you are saying. I do not leave it to the
excuse that these people are "just human" and move on as if nothing
happened. If there is a problem, FIX IT! I find this is our great
advantage in being "just human", that we can progress through trial and
error, and I think we should rather capitalize on that realization (and
admission) to address what is not working well for us.
I never suggested that the administration shouldn't be open to more
scrutiny. But I certainly don't think it is proper for all that the
Assembly deals with to be made public either. It is not my business how
they consult regarding divorces, etc. I definitely think the financial
reports should be as open and detailed as possible, however, because
that is the entire community's business.
I don't comment much on the Talisman, Dialogue, etc., "crackdowns",
because I have only (mostly) hearsay to go on. I don't implicitly
believe either side, but more see it as each side telling the 'truth' to
their own perspectives. Certainly, the members of the Institutions are
NOT infallible, including Counselors, ABMs, UHJs, XYZPDQ's... Anyone
who believes that is in serious denial of human nature. Not in the
sense that we're all corrupt, but that we are all imperfect beings,
trying to fill the shoes of a divinely ordained administration.
I don't believe this is justification, however, to constantly
second-guess the Institutions. We know what our duty is, to obey the
Institutions of the Faith. If we don't, we fail our part of the
Covenant. Doesn't mean we can't ask for clarification or appeal to
higher authorities though.
By the way, I don't fault the Baha'i administrators who "get themselves
elected" as much as I do the people who elect them. That is, the Baha'i
community. If we do not follow the voting guidelines laid down in the
Writings regarding characteristics to look for in elections, etc., and
keep falling for glossy, egomaniacal old-world style politicking and
electioneering, then we deserve what we get. Until the Baha'is
collectively learn this lesson, the Institutions will suffer from this
as a result. In essence, we get out what we put into it.
> The fact is, that if a member of the Phoenix Baha'i community, even
> today, asked to see the LSA's books, he might as well put in an
> application to have his administrative rights removed.
Ooooh, I don't think so. LA's Assembly ultimately benefited from their
troubles, and I can assure you Phoenix will as well.
It is very easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize the Baha'i
community's problems without putting in any direct effort to change
things. It gives people the false sense that they are actually "doing
something" constructive when they really aren't. But it's even worse to
turn a blind eye to the problems in our community, denying they exist.
jeff
Kent Johnson
faith. I am disgusted, however, by how Baha'is seem to be clamoring for
damning information about Mr. Nelson. I hope the Baha'i institutions can
resist this gossip.
--Kent
Steven Varner <var...@bahai-site.org> wrote in message
news:3733AB65...@bahai-site.org...
> jri...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > These attacks were ordered and coordinated by members of the US
> > national spiritual assembly and the universal house of justice. It goes
> > right to the center. Cyberspace is increasingly making such crackdowns
> > impossible, however. I think the Baha'i faith will benefit as a result.
>
Brian F. Walker
You will find that only a few are pursuing this line ... most Baha'is I
have seen responding have pointed out the lack of facts, the need to
avoid backbiting and the spreading of malicious rumour etc. Those who
are doing otherwise are either not Baha'i, or are beyond the pale -
Baha'i in name alone. Otherwise they would not flout the Teachings of
Baha'u'llah.
Best regards,
Brian
Kent Johnson wrote:
>
> No one I know attacks the covenant. We only hope for openness honesty and
> faith. I am disgusted, however, by how Baha'is seem to be clamoring for
> damning information about Mr. Nelson. I hope the Baha'i institutions can
> resist this gossip.
>
--
_________________________________________________________
Brian F. Walker
bfwk...@netvigator.com
Kent Johnson
--Kent
Brian F. Walker <bfwk...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:374102B0...@netvigator.com...