Tryin hard..
reli...@yahoo.com
Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com wrote on 10/11/03 9:50 pm:
> Mark wrote:
>> It seems to me that you are workin' hard to relate current topics
to the
>> Faith of God!! I guess it is understandable that when one doesn't
have
>> anything of consequence to spew forth.......... then just make it
up and
>> give it a little spin in the hope that someone might mistake it for
>> something factual. I can only encourage you to continue knowing
'that
>> eventually mud splatters back at its slinger'.......
>
> Hi Mark, very astute observation! Errol, backed by information from
> the highly reputable source, Fred Glaysher and alt.conspiracy.ufo, is
> slinging out innuendo about Baha'is in an effort to tarnish the faith.
>
> Once the Hutton inquiry finishes up, they'll have to invent a new
> conspiracy theory.
Newcomers to TRB evidence in this website has been documented from the
world media during the Hutton Inquiry. Please read with an open mind.
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Kelly.htm
Errol
Jerry Joplin
> Newcomers to TRB evidence in this website has been documented from the
> world media during the Hutton Inquiry. Please read with an open mind.
> http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Kelly.htm
And what is Fred's source for this article? An alleged article in a
British tabloid that Fred says "was apparently published" but it hasn't
even been confirmed it was published in the tabloid.
Jerry
reli...@yahoo.com
Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com wrote on 11/11/03 1:01 am:
The article is 100% more genuine than the bahai myth on the comment
made by Queen Victoria over the letter sent to her by Baha'u'llah and
the further porky pies made about Queen Marie of Romaina being a
bahai.
"The Mail On Sunday" published the article on 7th september:
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/KellyMai.htm "The Mail On
Sunday" is one of UK's national sunday papers, it's weekly daily
paper is called "The Mail" and it belongs to the same company as the
"London Evening Standard". Ask Cal if you want proof because I sent
him a photocopy of the complete newspaper article, after posting it up
on TRB myself......................Errol
Pat Kohli
reli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> in article vr0d8d3...@corp.supernews.com, Jerry Joplin at
> Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com wrote on 11/11/03 1:01 am:
>
> > reli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> Newcomers to TRB evidence in this website has been documented
> >>from the world media during the Hutton Inquiry. Please read with an
> >>open mind. http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Kelly.htm
> >
> > And what is Fred's source for this article? An alleged article in a
> > British tabloid that Fred says "was apparently published" but it hasn't
> > even been confirmed it was published in the tabloid.
>
> The article is 100% more genuine than the bahai myth on the comment
> made by Queen Victoria over the letter sent to her by Baha'u'llah
If you have something on the letter to the royals, something more substantive
than your own opinion, perhaps you'd care to post it? The simple reptition
of your assertion will not canonize it.
> and
> the further porky pies made about Queen Marie of Romaina being a
> bahai.
You were already shown the newspaper clippings.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3281965403d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3E30AD0C.B88DF523%40ameritel.net&rnum=2
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
APPRECIATIONS OF THE BAHÁ'Í FAITH
BY DOWAGER QUEEN MARIE OF RUMANIA
I was deeply moved on reception of your letter.
Indeed a great light came to me with the message of Bahá'u'lláh and
'Abdu'l-Bahá. It came as all great messages come at an hour of dire grief and
inner conflict and distress, so the seed sank deeply.
My youngest daughter finds also great strength and comfort in the
teachings of the beloved masters.
We pass on the message from month to month and all those we give it to
see
a light suddenly lighting before them and much that was obscure and
perplexing
becomes simple, luminous and full of hope as never before.
That my open letter was balm to those suffering for the cause is indeed
a
great happiness to me, and I take it as a sign that God accepted my humble
tribute.
The occasion given me to be able to express myself publicly, was also
His
Work-for indeed it was a chain of circumstances of which each link led me
unwittingly one step further, till suddenly all was clear before my eyes and
I
understood why it had been.
Thus does He lead us finally to our ultimate destiny.
Some of those of my caste wonder at and disapprove my courage to step
forward pronouncing words not habitual for Crowned Heads to pronounce, but I
advance by an inner urge I cannot resist. With bowed head I recognize that I
too
am but an instrument in greater Hands and rejoice in the knowledge.
Little by little the veil is lifting, grief tore it in two. And grief
was
also a step leading me ever nearer truth, therefore do I not cry out against
grief!
May you and those beneath your guidance be blessed and upheld by the
sacred strength of those gone before you.
A woman brought me the other day a Book. I spell it with a capital
letter
because it is a glorious Book of love and goodness, strength and beauty.
She gave it to me because she had learned I was in grief and sadness
and
wanted to help.... She put it into my hands saying: "You seem to live up to
His
teachings." And when I opened the Book I saw it was the word of 'Abdu'l-Bahá,
prophet of love and kindness, and of his father the great teacher of
international goodwill and understanding-of a religion which links all
creeds.
Their writings are a great cry toward peace, reaching beyond all limits
of
frontiers, above all dissension about rites and dogmas. It is a religion
based
upon the inner spirit of God, upon the great, not-to-be-overcome verity that
God
is love, meaning just that. It teaches that all hatreds, intrigues,
suspicions,
evil words, all aggressive patriotism even, are outside the one essential law
of
God, and that special beliefs are but surface things whereas the heart that
beats with divine love knows no tribe nor race.
It is a wondrous Message that Bahá'u'lláh and his son 'Abdu'l-Bahá have
given us. They have not set it up aggressively, knowing that the germ of
eternal
truth which lies at its core cannot but take root and spread.
There is only one great verity in it: Love, the mainspring of every
energy, tolerance toward each other, desire of understanding each other,
knowing
each other, helping each other, forgiving each other.
It is Christ's Message taken up anew, in the same words almost, but
adapted to the thousand years and more difference that lies between the year
one
and today. No man could fail to be better because of this Book.
I commend it to you all. If ever the name of Bahá'u'lláh or
'Abdu'l-Bahá
comes to your attention, do not put their writings from you. Search out their
Books, and let their glorious, peace-bringing, love-creating words and
lessons
sink into
your hearts as they have into mine.
One's busy day may seem too full for religion. Or one may have a
religion
that satisfies. But the teachings of these gentle, wise and kindly men are
compatible with all religion, and with no religion.
Seek them, and be the happier.
(From the Toronto Daily
Star,
May 4, 1926.)
Of course, if you take the stand that creation has no aim, it is easy
to
dismiss life and death with a shrug and a "that ends it all; nothing comes
after."
But how difficult it is so to dismiss the universe, our world, the
animal
and vegetable world, and man. How clearly one sees a plan in everything. How
unthinkable it is that the miraculous development that has brought man's
body,
brain and spirit to what it is, should cease. Why should it cease? Why is it
not
logical that it goes on? Not the body, which is only an instrument, but the
invisible spark or fire within the body which makes man one with the wider
plan
of creation.
My words are lame, and why should I grope for meanings when I can quote
from one who has said it so much more plainly, 'Abdu'l-Bahá, whom I know
would
sanction the use of his words:
"The whole physical creation is perishable. Material bodies are
composed
of atoms. When these atoms begin to separate, decomposition sets in. Then
comes
what we call death.
"This composition of atoms which constitutes the body or mortal element
of
any created being, is temporary. When the power of attraction which holds
these
atoms together is withdrawn, the body as such ceases to exist.
"With the soul it is different. The soul is not a combination of
elements,
is not composed of many atoms, is of one indivisible substance and therefore
eternal.
"It is entirely out of the order of physical creation; it is immortal!
The
soul, being an invisible, indivisible substance, can suffer neither
disintegration nor destruction. Therefore there is no reason for its coming
to
an end.
"Consider the aim of creation: Is it possible that all is created to
evolve and develop through countless ages with merely this small goal in
view-a
few years of man's life on earth? Is it not unthinkable that this should be
the
final aim of existence? Does a man cease to exist when he leaves his body? If
his life comes to an end, then all previous evolution is useless. All has
been
for nothing. All those eons of evolution for nothing! Can we imagine that
creation had no greater aim than this?
"The very existence of man's intelligence proves his immortality. His
intelligence is the intermediary between his body and his spirit. When man
allows his spirit, through his soul, to enlighten his understanding, then
does
he contain all creation; because man being the culmination of all that went
before, and thus superior to all previous evolutions, contains all the lower
already-evolved world within himself. Illumined by the spirit through the
instrumentality of the soul, man's radiant intelligence makes him the
crowning
point of creation!"
Thus does 'Abdu'l-Bahá explain to us the soul-the most convincing
elucidation I know.
(From the Toronto Daily Star, September 28, 1926.)
At first we all conceive of God as something or somebody apart from
ourselves. We think He is something or somebody definite, outside of us,
whose
quality, meaning and so-to-say "personality" we can grasp with our human,
finite
minds, and express in mere words.
This is not so. We cannot, with our earthly faculties entirely grasp
His
meaning-no more than we can really understand the meaning of Eternity.
God is certainly not the old Fatherly gentleman with the long beard
that
in our childhood we saw pictured sitting amongst clouds on the throne of
judgment, holding the lightning of vengeance in His hand.
God is something simpler, happier, and yet infinitely more tremendous.
God
is All, Everything. He is the power behind all beginnings. He is the
inexhaustible source of supply, of love, of good, of progress, of
achievement.
God is therefore Happiness.
His is the voice within us that shows us good and evil.
But mostly we ignore or misunderstand this voice. Therefore did He
choose
his Elect to come down amongst us upon earth to make clear His word, His real
meaning. Therefore the Prophets; therefore Christ, Muhammad, Bahá'u'lláh, for
man needs from time to time a voice upon earth to bring God to him, to
sharpen
the realization of the existence of the true God. Those voices sent to us had
to
become flesh, so that with our earthly ears we should be able to hear and
understand.
Those who read their Bible with "peeled eyes" will find in almost every
line some revelation. But it takes long life, suffering or some sudden event
to
tear all at once the veil from our eyes, so that we can truly see....Sorrow
and
suffering are the surest and also the most common instructors, the
straightest
channel to God-that is to say, to that inner something within each of us
which
is God.
Happiness beyond all understanding comes with this revelation that God
is
within us, if we will but listen to His voice. We need not seek Him in the
clouds. He is the All-Father whence we came and to whom we shall return when,
having done with this earthly body, we pass onward.
If I have repeated myself, forgive me. There are so many ways of saying
things, but what is important is the truth which lies in all the many ways of
expressing it. (From the Philadelphia "Evening Bulletin," Monday, September
27,
1926.)
"Lately a great hope has come to me from one, 'Abdu'l-Bahá. I have
found
in His and His Father, Bahá'u'lláh's Message of Faith all my yearning for
real
religion satisfied. If you ever hear of Baha'is or of the Bahá'í Movement
which
is known in America, you will know what that is. What I mean: these Books
have
strengthened me beyond belief and I am now ready to die any day full of hope.
But I pray God not to take me away yet for I still have a lot of work to do."
"The Bahá'í teaching brings peace and understanding.
"It is like a wide embrace gathering together all those who have long
searched for words of hope.
"It accepts all great prophets gone before, it destroys no other creeds
and leaves all doors open.
"Saddened by the continual strife amongst believers of many confessions
and wearied of their intolerance towards each other, I discovered in the
Bahá'í
teaching the real spirit of Christ so often denied and misunderstood:
"Unity instead of strife, hope instead of condemnation, love instead of
hate, and a great reassurance for all men."
"The Bahá'í teaching brings peace to the soul and hope to [sic]
"To those in search of assurance the words of the Father are as a
fountain
in the desert after long wandering."
"More than ever today when the world is facing such a crisis of
bewilderment and unrest, must we stand firm in Faith seeking that which binds
together instead of tearing asunder."
"To those searching for light, the Bahá'í Teachings offer a star which
will lead them to deeper understanding, to
assurance, peace and good will with all men."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From the Toronto Daily Star
http://bahai-library.org/books/appreciations.html
Jerry Joplin
>>British tabloid that Fred says "was apparently published" but it hasn't
>>even been confirmed it was published in the tabloid.
>
> The article is 100% more genuine than the bahai myth on the comment
> made by Queen Victoria over the letter sent to her by Baha'u'llah and
> the further porky pies made about Queen Marie of Romaina being a
> bahai.
You might want to ask Fred to post it on his site then. I'm just
quoting his site, and he says it was apparently published. Also, Pat
has posted the text itself of Queen Marie of Romania, with the link:
Pat wrote:
> From the Toronto Daily Star
> http://bahai-library.org/books/appreciations.html
So until you or Fred publish a non-apparent source for the article, we
can't even discuss the credibility of it, or the source.
Jerry
reli...@yahoo.com
Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com wrote on 11/11/03 4:49 pm:
> reli...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com wrote on 11/11/03 1:01 am:
>>> And what is Fred's source for this article? An alleged article in
a
>>> British tabloid that Fred says "was apparently published" but it
hasn't
>>> even been confirmed it was published in the tabloid.
>>
>> The article is 100% more genuine than the bahai myth on the
comment
>> made by Queen Victoria over the letter sent to her by Baha'u'llah
and
>> the further porky pies made about Queen Marie of Romaina being a
>> bahai.
>
> You might want to ask Fred to post it on his site then. I'm just
> quoting his site, and he says it was apparently published. Also, Pat
> has posted the text itself of Queen Marie of Romania, with the link:
The text on Queen Marie dont prove she ever became a baha'i. One
poster here to TRB has flew the flag of praise for bahai for the past
year and he never joined the Faith so why is he any different than
Queen marie?
>
> Pat wrote:
>> From the Toronto Daily Star
>> http://bahai-library.org/books/appreciations.html
>
> So until you or Fred publish a non-apparent source for the article, we
> can't even discuss the credibility of it, or the source.
I am not asking you to "discuss the credibility" because you (nor the
UHJ) have no credible proof Queen Victoria made any **comment** when
baha'u'llah sent her a letter, and neither have you any proof Queen
Marie became a bahai.
Why would her own very daughter go to great lengths to deny her mother
was ever a bahai? Because she seen her mothers letters being
disgracefully misused and abused proselytizing a weird Islamic/bahai
cult all across canadian newspapers back in 1926. I would believe
her statement anyday before I would believe any
bahai....................Errol
Cal E. Rollins
Yes. Whoever wants proof that the tabloid was published, I confirm you
sent me a copy and it was some of the most impressive national coverage
I've seen of the Faith outside of stuff the Iranians did when they
published Baha'u'llah's photograph in their Teheran Times or whatever
it's called. I didn't think from the pics of Mai that she was pretty
enough to turn a man's head, but apparently there's no accounting for
white male taste. Her first husband looked like a Baha'i movie actor I'd
run across in Santa Monica. That babe, Paula Yates, perched on top of
Mai's photo and story looked far more likely to be a Mata Hari in her
Fredericks of Hollywood lingerie. Mai definitely doesn't impress me as
a Baha'i femme fatale unless we've different standards from the norm.
She looks like the picture of decorum and not at all the pistol packing
mama the articles portray her as. I expected something like Barbara
Carrera out of a James Bond movie. Now there's a head-turner! The kind
Baha'u'llah said we shouldn't even look at in search for the Beloved no
matter what she wasn't wearing and the Master no matter how well she
could sing. --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
If sources you want for everything you hear or read in the Faith, you're
going to be disappointed. Shoot man, there's still some debate about
how many wives Baha'u'llah had, who they were, and whether or not one or
two of them were black. Plus we don't know what He wrote in all those
unpublished Tablets we've got. Didn't somebody say we've only 95% of
His revelation translated? Somebody even said we've got what we need to
know that was important. Can you figure that out?
So, true, we can't go off half-cocked about what we hear, but we
certainly can't get hung up on truth. Maybe eons and eons from now
we'll have a better take on that attribute, it seems to me. You're
starting to sound like a Baby Susan doll at Macy's. We have heard that
American youth are conservative, but I didn't know it had affected
Baha'i youth, too. Times have sure changed. We used to believe
everything we were told until the burp-head Remeyites burst that bubble.
--Cal
Pat Kohli
reli...@yahoo.com wrote:
The daughter is Christian clergy. She may believe that an apostate from
Christianity would be damned, and, that by acknowledging some name other
than Jesus Christ as the most recent manifestation of God, she would be an
apostate from Christianity. In my mind, that is why the daughter would want
to believe her mother remained a Christian. I really don't think it is so
hard to understand that the child wants her mother to be the same religion
that she is. However, I didn't see that any big deal was made of the matter
by Mother Alexandra. the big deal seems to be made by other parties who
prefer to repeat this discredited tale, w/ minimal provocation.
> Because she seen her mothers letters being
The letters were sent in the 1920s, and they were gathered in a collection
of endorsements from many other VIPs in the early 1940s. When William
Miller wrote his latest book on the BF, he asserted that in 1970 (30 years
after the Queen's letters had last been published) Mother Alexandra wrote a
letter to Tony Sistrom, and a passage from that letter found its way into
Miller's book on the BF. Where is this letter?
>
> disgracefully misused and abused proselytizing a weird Islamic/bahai
> cult all across canadian newspapers back in 1926.
I doubt Mother Alexandra was reading the Canadian papers in 1926.
> I would believe
> her statement anyday before I would believe any
> bahai....................Errol
Of course, and that is another matter entirely.
Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
Jerry Joplin
> The text on Queen Marie dont prove she ever became a baha'i. One
> poster here to TRB has flew the flag of praise for bahai for the past
> year and he never joined the Faith so why is he any different than
> Queen marie?
I don't see any writings where Shoghi Effendi claimed Queen Marie became
a _member_ of the Baha'i Faith. She embraced the faith, she endorsed
it, she said it was Christ's message anew! Those are her words. Her
daughter only said Marie hadn't become a _member_. Maybe she was
mistaken, maybe she wasn't, but clearly Queen Marie embraced the faith.
That is beyond question.
The difference between Queen Marie and "one poster here to TRB" is that
Queen Marie fulfilled one of Baha'u'llah's blessings in the Aqdas.
84 How great the blessedness that awaiteth the king
who will arise to aid My Cause in My kingdom, who
will detach himself from all else but Me!
(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 50)
> I am not asking you to "discuss the credibility" because you (nor the
> UHJ) have no credible proof Queen Victoria made any **comment** when
> baha'u'llah sent her a letter, and neither have you any proof Queen
> Marie became a bahai.
"Queen Victoria, it is said, upon reading the Tablet revealed for her
remarked: 'If this is of God, it will endure; if not, it can do no harm.'"
(Shoghi Effendi, The Promised Day is Come, p. 65)
The BBC (no less) also includes the remark as this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/bahai/history/bah_hist10.shtml
"Queen Victoria is alleged to have replied 'If this is of God, it will
endure. If not, no harm can come of it.'"
There seems to be quite a lot more proof that she did say it, than proof
she didn't say it.
Jerry
Jerry Joplin
> If sources you want for everything you hear or read in the Faith, you're
> going to be disappointed. Shoot man, there's still some debate about
> how many wives Baha'u'llah had, who they were, and whether or not one or
> two of them were black. Plus we don't know what He wrote in all those
> unpublished Tablets we've got. Didn't somebody say we've only 95% of
> His revelation translated? Somebody even said we've got what we need to
> know that was important. Can you figure that out?
I don't need sources for _everything_ I hear or read about the Faith.
However, if someone is alleging specific statements made by the faith,
then I would like a source.
> So, true, we can't go off half-cocked about what we hear, but we
> certainly can't get hung up on truth. Maybe eons and eons from now
> we'll have a better take on that attribute, it seems to me. You're
> starting to sound like a Baby Susan doll at Macy's. We have heard that
> American youth are conservative, but I didn't know it had affected
> Baha'i youth, too. Times have sure changed. We used to believe
> everything we were told until the burp-head Remeyites burst that bubble.
I'm not particularly conservative, hey I voted for Nader and quite a few
Greens in the last election! But if Baha'is are subject to
misunderstandings of truth, then the dissidents should be subject to the
same misunderstandings. Right?
Jerry
Rod
Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3FB10A3E...@ameritel.net...
>
>
> reli...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > in article vr0d8d3...@corp.supernews.com, Jerry Joplin at
> > Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com wrote on 11/11/03 1:01 am:
> >
> > > reli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >> Newcomers to TRB evidence in this website has been documented
> > >>from the world media during the Hutton Inquiry. Please read with an
> > >>open mind. http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Kelly.htm
> > >
> > > And what is Fred's source for this article? An alleged article in a
> > > British tabloid that Fred says "was apparently published" but it
hasn't
> > > even been confirmed it was published in the tabloid.
> >
> > The article is 100% more genuine than the bahai myth on the comment
> > made by Queen Victoria over the letter sent to her by Baha'u'llah
>
> If you have something on the letter to the royals, something more
substantive
> than your own opinion, perhaps you'd care to post it? The simple
reptition
> of your assertion will not canonize it.
You are quite content with the "canonisation" of serious allegation through
"repetition" by Jerry and Susan......yet this peripheral and ephemeral
"assertion"
offends you Pat.?
What happened to the man who once argued that Baha'is do defend fellow
community members from baseless charges? Did the reality of the culture of
denial overwhelm you?
Rod.
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Cal E. Rollins" <crol...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:4271-3FB...@storefull-2332.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> Jerry,
>
> If sources you want for everything you hear or read in the Faith, you're
> going to be disappointed. Shoot man, there's still some debate about
> how many wives Baha'u'llah had, who they were, and whether or not one or
> two of them were black. Plus we don't know what He wrote in all those
> unpublished Tablets we've got. Didn't somebody say we've only 95% of
> His revelation translated? Somebody even said we've got what we need to
> know that was important. Can you figure that out?
There's so much he hasn't figured out yet, Cal, of which the Sydney Opera
House is the least important. But if he wants sources for everything and
only goes by what is written down I forecast that he'll go far in the AO,
mebbe even all the way to Haifa. Now if he gets a move-on and a bit of
spring in his arse he'll get there and I'll get the desired CB label before
turning the toes up.
> So, true, we can't go off half-cocked about what we hear, but we
> certainly can't get hung up on truth. Maybe eons and eons from now
> we'll have a better take on that attribute, it seems to me. You're
> starting to sound like a Baby Susan doll at Macy's. We have heard that
> American youth are conservative, but I didn't know it had affected
> Baha'i youth, too.
Bahai youth are excessively conservative - they've so little of any real
value to conserve.
> Times have sure changed. We used to believe
> everything we were told until the burp-head Remeyites burst that bubble.
Do you think Haifa will ever realise that not everything it says is
believed? Everytime I hear of a statement from the AO I'm minded of Leslie
Neilson in "Airplane" - you remember that bit where, with the pilots
incapacitated, he tries to reassure the passengers that all is well, as his
nose grows and progresses down the aisle to the aft bulkhead
> --Cal
>
reli...@yahoo.com
Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com wrote on 11/11/03 7:39 pm:
> reli...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> The text on Queen Marie dont prove she ever became a baha'i. One
>> poster here to TRB has flew the flag of praise for bahai for the
past
>> year and he never joined the Faith so why is he any different than
>> Queen marie?
>
> I don't see any writings where Shoghi Effendi claimed Queen Marie became
> a _member_ of the Baha'i Faith. She embraced the faith, she endorsed
> it, she said it was Christ's message anew! Those are her words. Her
> daughter only said Marie hadn't become a _member_. Maybe she was
> mistaken, maybe she wasn't, but clearly Queen Marie embraced the faith.
> That is beyond question.
This is the usual hyberbole hogwash many bahais come off with when
someone is friendly to baha'is. I have heard it stated over and over
again, usually by Persians. I worked with a Romanian Jew called
"Lucky" in Haifa and all I got repeatedly from a prominent Persian
bahai was "Lucky is a bahai and he just dont know it yet". All "Lucky"
was doing was licking the Persian bahai butt, saying nice things about
baha'is so he could get his contract renewed.
>
> The difference between Queen Marie and "one poster here to TRB" is that
> Queen Marie fulfilled one of Baha'u'llah's blessings in the Aqdas.
>
> 84 How great the blessedness that awaiteth the king
> who will arise to aid My Cause in My kingdom, who
> will detach himself from all else but Me!
> (Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 50)
Hyberbole nonsense Jerry, why did this happen if she was a bahai?
"Marie had given instructions that her heart be taken out from her
body and placed in a gold casket with the Romanian emblems and taken
to a small church in the Balcic Gardens".
http://www.webrarian.co.uk/marie/
>> I am not asking you to "discuss the credibility" because you (nor
the
>> UHJ) have no credible proof Queen Victoria made any **comment**
when
>> baha'u'llah sent her a letter, and neither have you any proof Queen
>> Marie became a bahai.
>
> "Queen Victoria, it is said, upon reading the Tablet revealed for her
> remarked: 'If this is of God, it will endure; if not, it can do no harm.'"
> (Shoghi Effendi, The Promised Day is Come, p. 65)
>
> The BBC (no less) also includes the remark as this:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/bahai/history/bah_hist10.shtml
> "Queen Victoria is alleged to have replied 'If this is of God, it will
> endure. If not, no harm can come of it.'"
Nonsense, the BBC was only copying what Shoghi Effendi said. Just
like the palace valet who told Princess DI he saw Prince Charles
preforming a homosexual act in the palace. The law in England would
require more evidence that this to prove the act actually happened.
>
> There seems to be quite a lot more proof that she did say it, than proof
> she didn't say it.
Like wise basic law would require more proof that Queen Victoria even
read the letter before they even believed someone overheard the Queen
making such a statement.
In the 1st case they have a witness, whereas in the latter bahai case
there is not even a witness. Heard of Irish baloney well this is bahai
baloney, even dogs in a Haifa street can see through this one.
Errol
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Jerry Joplin" <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
news:vr2ep29...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Queen Victoria, it is said, upon reading the Tablet revealed for her
> remarked: 'If this is of God, it will endure; if not, it can do no harm.'"
> (Shoghi Effendi, The Promised Day is Come, p. 65)
>
> The BBC (no less) also includes the remark as this:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/bahai/history/bah_hist10.shtml
> "Queen Victoria is alleged to have replied 'If this is of God, it will
> endure. If not, no harm can come of it.'"
>
> There seems to be quite a lot more proof that she did say it, than proof
> she didn't say it.
There is no proof. Both of the above statements are conditional. Shoghi
acknowledges that it is reported she said that whilst the Beeb notes it as
an allegation. Both statements go no further than state that there are
unconfirmed reports to the effect. This is not proof that she said it. As
the Fatima tale shows it is very easy to start a rumour and watch it unfold
throughout a community that wants to believe it has substance.
Paul Hammond
> > The text on Queen Marie dont prove she ever became a baha'i. One
> > poster here to TRB has flew the flag of praise for bahai for the past
> > year and he never joined the Faith so why is he any different than
> > Queen marie?
>
> I don't see any writings where Shoghi Effendi claimed Queen Marie became
> a _member_ of the Baha'i Faith. She embraced the faith, she endorsed
> it, she said it was Christ's message anew!
I think the truth is that Queen Marie was as much a member of
the Faith as anyone else was in those days (there wasn't
necessarily an official membership procedure in those
early days).
Also, there appears to have been some resentment of
Queen Marie's new faith amongst some members of their
family - so if you read *their* accounts, you will find
them saying "Oh, no, Auntie Marie was never a Baha'i"
- but things that other people say will contradict
this.
At this distance, there is probably no way to know
for sure - but if Error says that something is
suspicious, you *know* he's exaggerating.
And, btw, Error, as the "one poster who flew the
flag of praise for the Baha'i Faith on trb" for the
past year, I don't appreciate *anybody* speaking
on my behalf, so quit it.
And what's with the Baha'i style "it's not backbiting
so long as I don't mention his name" bollocks?
I don't come to trb to praise the Baha'i Faith - however,
I do have a very strong bullshit detector, and it
goes off every time I read one of your posts.
Paul
Jerry Joplin
There's more evidence she *did* say it, than didn't. We have Shoghi
Effendi's words, and we have the BBC quoting the statement as something
she was alleged to have said, but the BBC doesn't deny the allegation.
There is no evidence she didn't say it. Did any of the British royalty
deny she said it? If they did, I couldn't find it. If you have proof
that someone (other than George or Fred) said she didn't say it, then
put your evidence on the table.
Also, if you analyze the plausability of the statement, it certainly
seems consistent with something Victoria could have said.
So we have the words of Shoghi Effendi, the BBC, and the plausibility of
the statement as evidence in the positive.
What evidence in the negative?
Jerry
Jerry Joplin
>>a _member_ of the Baha'i Faith. She embraced the faith, she endorsed
>>it, she said it was Christ's message anew! Those are her words. Her
>>daughter only said Marie hadn't become a _member_. Maybe she was
>>mistaken, maybe she wasn't, but clearly Queen Marie embraced the faith.
>>That is beyond question.
>
>
> This is the usual hyberbole hogwash many bahais come off with when
> someone is friendly to baha'is. I have heard it stated over and over
> again, usually by Persians. I worked with a Romanian Jew called
> "Lucky" in Haifa and all I got repeatedly from a prominent Persian
> bahai was "Lucky is a bahai and he just dont know it yet". All "Lucky"
> was doing was licking the Persian bahai butt, saying nice things about
> baha'is so he could get his contract renewed.
You're alleged Persian Baha'i's comments are irrelevant. We're talking
about the words of Queen Marie herself, and its obvious she embraced and
endorsed the faith.
> Hyberbole nonsense Jerry, why did this happen if she was a bahai?
>
> "Marie had given instructions that her heart be taken out from her
> body and placed in a gold casket with the Romanian emblems and taken
> to a small church in the Balcic Gardens".
> http://www.webrarian.co.uk/marie/
She died in 1938, she embraced the faith in 1926. We don't know why she
wanted her heart buried in an Orthodox chapel in 1938, but we *DO* know
that she embraced and endorsed the faith in 1926.
> Nonsense, the BBC was only copying what Shoghi Effendi said. Just
> like the palace valet who told Princess DI he saw Prince Charles
> preforming a homosexual act in the palace. The law in England would
> require more evidence that this to prove the act actually happened.
You have absolutely no proof that the BBC was just copying what Shoghi
Effendi said. This is simply your conjecture. You may be right, but
you may be wrong and they didn't include footnotes, so we can't draw any
conclusions from the evidence.
> Like wise basic law would require more proof that Queen Victoria even
> read the letter before they even believed someone overheard the Queen
> making such a statement.
>
> In the 1st case they have a witness, whereas in the latter bahai case
> there is not even a witness. Heard of Irish baloney well this is bahai
> baloney, even dogs in a Haifa street can see through this one.
If you're trying to prove that the Baha'i Faith is perpetrating a fraud,
then *YOU* are going to need more evidence that she *didn't* say it.
We have the words of Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Faith, and you
only have your conjectures.
Jerry
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Jerry Joplin" <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
> > There is no proof. Both of the above statements are conditional.
Shoghi
> > acknowledges that it is reported she said that whilst the Beeb notes it
as
> > an allegation. Both statements go no further than state that there are
> > unconfirmed reports to the effect. This is not proof that she said it.
As
> > the Fatima tale shows it is very easy to start a rumour and watch it
unfold
> > throughout a community that wants to believe it has substance.
>
> There's more evidence she *did* say it, than didn't. We have Shoghi
> Effendi's words, and we have the BBC quoting the statement as something
> she was alleged to have said, but the BBC doesn't deny the allegation.
There's no evidence that she said anything. Shoghi wasn't there when the
letter was sent; there's no reply to it in the Haifan dungeons (otherwise it
would have been produced) and no sworn affidavits or other credible
independent sources verifying the report. As far as I can see the only
evidence is Shoghi's statement and he wasn't prepared to state it
definitively.
The Beeb does not have to deny any allegation. It has simply reported that
an allegation has been made without testifying as to its veracity or
otherwise probably because it has no evidence on which to do otherwise.
It's likely that the bit from the Beeb actually refers to Shoghi's report.
> There is no evidence she didn't say it. Did any of the British royalty
> deny she said it? If they did, I couldn't find it. If you have proof
> that someone (other than George or Fred) said she didn't say it, then
> put your evidence on the table.
None of the current members of the British Royalty were around at that time
so even they would be hard pushed to offer any firm opinion on the matter.
If you want to assert the validity of the remark attributed to Victoria the
onus of proof is on you - to say that there is no evidence she didn't say it
is insufficient.
> Also, if you analyze the plausability of the statement, it certainly
> seems consistent with something Victoria could have said.
You knew her well?
> So we have the words of Shoghi Effendi, the BBC, and the plausibility of
> the statement as evidence in the positive.
Shoghi didn't say that she said it - he said that it was reported and he
doesn't state by whom.
> What evidence in the negative?
One does not need to prove a negative -'tis the assertion that has to be
proved.
Pat Kohli
Rod wrote:
Effie! Nice to see you here on TRB, 'sniping in' on this discussion of Queen
Vick!
> Did the reality of the culture of
> denial overwhelm you?
I feel like I've got _your_ reality, you guys.
"I thought I was her one and only little bogus enemy of the faith!!!!"
Rod, referring to Susan, Valentines Day, 2003
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=8ccded73.0302140929.1ec129fc%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3faa2457%40dnews.tpgi.com.au
Really, Rod, go sort out your own stuff. I don't start your fights, you do;
and, if you've bitched me out already for trying to help Jerry come to an
understanding of you. I feel like you are begging me to hound you, as you
hound others, and as I am certainly capable of. In your case, though, I don't
see there is _anything_ gained by it. Homey won't play. Oh well!
tootles,
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Jerry Joplin" <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
> If you're trying to prove that the Baha'i Faith is perpetrating a fraud,
> then *YOU* are going to need more evidence that she *didn't* say it.
> We have the words of Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Faith, and you
> only have your conjectures.
I hate to burst your bubble on this one but Shoghi hisself admitted he
wasn't infallible in matters of historical import. Perhaps that's why he
cited this as a report and not an article of faith upon which hinged the
eternal salvation of the planet. And do note that he cited no source for
it. So unless he was inspired in the matter, which I very much doubt, this
can only go down as an interesting tale but not necessarily a factual
account of what happened.
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Susan Maneck
>I hate to burst your bubble on this one but Shoghi hisself admitted he
>wasn't infallible in matters of historical import.
Give me a break, Dermod. He said he wasn't infallible in matters of history,
not historical import. His authoritative interpretations have historical
import! We are talking about what the Guardian said regarding the faith of
someone with whom he was corresponding frequently and it agrees perfectly with
her own respresentation. There is every reason to believe that she was silenced
for political reasons. We know they wouldn't let her go on pilgrimage. As to
her daughter, obviously she had second thoughts afterwards. She did end up a
Mother Superior and it is natural she would have wanted to downplay her
mother's relationship to the Faith.
http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st
Brid
Well, Jerry, no less a person than Shoghi Effendi himself said that
there was no written evidence that Queen Victoria ever said it. Here's
the relevant documentation (carefully copied to avoid any danger of
misquotation) from a letter of the Research Dept. of the UHJ dated 6
November 1997 :
The Research Department has been able to find a statement in a letter
on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, specifically regarding the reaction of
Queen Victoria to the Tablet addressed to her:
...as we have no written statement to this effect, we cannot be sure
about it. We do not know where the original of this statement is.
(21 February 1942 to an individual)
http://bahai-library.org/uhj/napoleon.victoria.html
Brid
Brid
> reli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > Why would her own very daughter go to great lengths to deny her mother
> > was ever a bahai?
>
> The daughter is Christian clergy. She may believe that an apostate from
> Christianity would be damned, and, that by acknowledging some name other
> than Jesus Christ as the most recent manifestation of God, she would be an
> apostate from Christianity. In my mind, that is why the daughter would want
> to believe her mother remained a Christian. I really don't think it is so
> hard to understand that the child wants her mother to be the same religion
> that she is. However, I didn't see that any big deal was made of the matter
> by Mother Alexandra. the big deal seems to be made by other parties who
> prefer to repeat this discredited tale, w/ minimal provocation.
Pat, I'm experiencing a real sense of deja-vu here as the Queen Marie
issue is the one I made my debut with here on TRB and even had the
chutzpah to cross swords with the legendary Pat Kholi. I just wanted
to say that as Princess Ileana of Romania ended her days as Mother
Alexandra, foundress of an Orthodox convent in the USA, it may well be
that there was a natural embarrasment about admitting her mother's
interest in religious movements outside Christianity. Queen Marie was
quite a character and, as we discussed before, her own family embodied
the three traditions of Anglicanism (Queen M), Catholicism (her
husband) and Orthodoxy (her children). From the non-Baha'i material I
have read about Queen M. it seems clear that she was interested in
exploring religious movements and philosophies outside these
boundaries. She was, for example, also very taken with Frank
Buchmann's Oxford movement, and even had him to stay at the palace. I
can well understand that Mother Alexandra might have been reluctant to
face up to this rather unorthodox (small o) behaviour on the part of
her mother and even more reluctant to admit to any youthful flirtation
with it herself.
This is, of course, not an unknown phenomenon, and a perfectly
understandable human reaction. Errol himself is very exercised about
Baha'is claiming that Baha'u'llah is the Return of Christ, but
reluctant to acknowledge that at one time he believed this very thing
himself:
They are all still waiting for the return of Christ. little do they
know he
has come and gone and has been buried in Akka since 1892. his name was
Baha'u'llah.........................George
Odd Bedfellows
From: george.fleming2 (view other messages by this author)
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 09:28:05
I point this out not from any position of superiority because I also
was reluctant to admit that I had been involved with the Baha'i Faith
myself. In the immediate aftermath of my resignation I went into a
period of denial about ever having been a Baha'i and tried to pretend
that it had never happened. It was not a good strategy and it was not
until I did admit the reality of my involvement that I was able to
truly move on and deal with the experience more constructively.
To return to Queen Marie, I have asked on Orthodox newsgroups if
anyone has any information on her family's flirtation with the Baha'i
Faith and have never received any replies. One group were recently
discussing candidates for the next American Orthodox saint and Mother
Alexandra was one of the front runners. Do you think I should tell
them? :-)
Brid
Rod
shedding some light on the significance of these links...I don't know
what they are supposed to signify/indicate.....especially the first one
(and the extracted quote) this is all evidence of what?
reli...@yahoo.com
bridci...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/11/03 10:31 am:
> This is, of course, not an unknown phenomenon, and a perfectly
> understandable human reaction. Errol himself is very exercised about
> Baha'is claiming that Baha'u'llah is the Return of Christ, but
> reluctant to acknowledge that at one time he believed this very thing
> himself:
>
> They are all still waiting for the return of Christ. little do they
> know he has come and gone and has been buried in Akka since 1892. his name was
> Baha'u'llah.........................George
>
> Odd Bedfellows
>
> From: george.fleming2 (view other messages by this author)
> Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 09:28:05
I am very reluctant to declare "I am at present 100% sure now I do not
believe baha'u'llah was/is the return of Christ". The above statement
was not a 100& declaration I ever believed Baha'u'llah was the return
of Christ as I have always had doubts, it is a common Baha'i belief,
but many who join like myself have doubts once they become members.
Had I been 100% sure in my mind I would never have just resigned my
membership over a dispute on the internet. I had intended to leave
long before that. Circumstances related to the political and religious
upheaval of the country I live in had very much to do with one of the
reasons I joined the bahai's. Other's were art and social reasons, and
the only way to know how any religion works properly is to join it and
find out for youself. Had I had access to cyber-space 10 years earlier
I dare say I would have left much sooner that I did.
I think Brid should concentrate on her own reasons, why she joined and
left the baha'is and not start to analyse others why they decided to
do so. She certainly wouldn't like it if I started to analyse her
reasons for joining or leaving openly on TRB. Like Eric, Robert and
QisQos all were bahai's at one time and have left and become committed
christians. Like them I have freedom of concience to do likewise
whether Brid approves or not.
Errol
Paul Hammond
> in article vr2ep29...@corp.supernews.com, Jerry Joplin at
> Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com wrote on 11/11/03 7:39 pm:
>
> > reli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> The text on Queen Marie dont prove she ever became a baha'i. One
> >> poster here to TRB has flew the flag of praise for bahai for the
> past
> >> year and he never joined the Faith so why is he any different than
> >> Queen marie?
> >
> > I don't see any writings where Shoghi Effendi claimed Queen Marie became
> > a _member_ of the Baha'i Faith. She embraced the faith, she endorsed
> > it, she said it was Christ's message anew! Those are her words. Her
> > daughter only said Marie hadn't become a _member_. Maybe she was
> > mistaken, maybe she wasn't, but clearly Queen Marie embraced the faith.
> > That is beyond question.
>
> This is the usual hyberbole hogwash many bahais come off with when
> someone is friendly to baha'is. I have heard it stated over and over
> again, usually by Persians. I worked with a Romanian Jew called
> "Lucky" in Haifa and all I got repeatedly from a prominent Persian
> bahai was "Lucky is a bahai and he just dont know it yet". All "Lucky"
> was doing was licking the Persian bahai butt, saying nice things about
> baha'is so he could get his contract renewed.
>
Saying "X is a Baha'i but he doesn't know it yet" is normal
Baha'i happy talk for saying that they like someone.
It doesn't mean that they think the person really has declared -
nowadays, you *do* have to sign a declaration card to become
Baha'i.
This is an irrelevant comment, if we are still trying
to talk about Queen Marie.
And, of course, in Haifa and Israel, there are special
rules that don't apply anywhere else.
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Susan Maneck " <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031112002759...@mb-m21.aol.com...
> >
> >I hate to burst your bubble on this one but Shoghi hisself admitted he
> >wasn't infallible in matters of historical import.
>
> Give me a break, Dermod. He said he wasn't infallible in matters of
history,
> not historical import.
Same difference!
> His authoritative interpretations have historical
> import!
But only after the event, not at the time they were written..
> We are talking about what the Guardian said regarding the faith of
> someone with whom he was corresponding frequently and it agrees perfectly
with
> her own respresentation.
Actually I wasn't. It has long been the practice of the Reaper not to butt
into conversations on matters with which he is not intimately acquainted. I
was merely trying to point out to that clampit, Janis, that Shoghi's
thoughts on matters historical carry no more importance that those of any
informed historian, amateur or professional.
> There is every reason to believe that she was silenced
> for political reasons.
Ah! Speculation! Now why do you condemn it when it comes from me (and
others) if it's critical of your POV yet pass it off for your own
intentions.
> We know they wouldn't let her go on pilgrimage.
More speculation?
>As to
> her daughter, obviously she had second thoughts afterwards.
And more still?
> She did end up a
> Mother Superior and it is natural she would have wanted to downplay her
> mother's relationship to the Faith.
A conclusion based on speculations and plausibility which implicitedly
criticises the daughter for apparent political motivation. I wonder if
similar considerations didn't influence Shoghi and others whose intent is
the aggrandisement of the BF.
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:c977f97b.03111...@posting.google.com...
> And, of course, in Haifa and Israel, there are special
> rules that don't apply anywhere else.
Now there's an understatement if ever I have seen one.
Jerry Joplin
> None of the current members of the British Royalty were around at that time
> so even they would be hard pushed to offer any firm opinion on the matter.
> If you want to assert the validity of the remark attributed to Victoria the
> onus of proof is on you - to say that there is no evidence she didn't say it
> is insufficient.
The burden of proof is on the accuser. In this case Errol accused
Baha'is of fraud, or in his words "porky pies made about Queen Marie of
Romaina being a bahai."
The weight of existing evidence even supports the Baha'i view. And it
certainly does not rise to the level of fraud "beyond reasonable doubt."
Jerry
Jerry Joplin
> "Jerry Joplin" <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote:
>
>>then *YOU* are going to need more evidence that she *didn't* say it.
>>We have the words of Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Faith, and you
>>only have your conjectures.
>
> I hate to burst your bubble on this one but Shoghi hisself admitted he
> wasn't infallible in matters of historical import. Perhaps that's why he
> cited this as a report and not an article of faith upon which hinged the
> eternal salvation of the planet. And do note that he cited no source for
> it. So unless he was inspired in the matter, which I very much doubt, this
> can only go down as an interesting tale but not necessarily a factual
> account of what happened.
Shoghi Effendi's infallibility isn't the issue. Shoghi Effendi's
contemporaneous statement supporting Queen Victoria's remark is the issue.
Jerry
Jerry Joplin
> Well, Jerry, no less a person than Shoghi Effendi himself said that
> there was no written evidence that Queen Victoria ever said it. Here's
> the relevant documentation (carefully copied to avoid any danger of
> misquotation) from a letter of the Research Dept. of the UHJ dated 6
> November 1997 :
>
> The Research Department has been able to find a statement in a letter
> on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, specifically regarding the reaction of
> Queen Victoria to the Tablet addressed to her:
>
>
> ...as we have no written statement to this effect, we cannot be sure
> about it. We do not know where the original of this statement is.
> (21 February 1942 to an individual)
>
>
> http://bahai-library.org/uhj/napoleon.victoria.html
If you are going to side with Errol in an accusation that the Baha'i
Faith is essentially committing fraud by proclaiming some statements
from Queen Victoria which were never stated, then the burden of proof is
upon you to show that she *didn't* say it. Or that Shoghi Effendi
intentionally made up the remark.
You have none of this. In fact, the balance of evidence even supports
the statement. The UHJ is just saying that they don't have a written
statement to the effect, but there is no retraction.
Jerry
Randy Burns
dramatist.
Cheers, Randy
--
"Dermod Ryder" <grim_reaper MO...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bothat$79g$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
Brid
Errol,
I have already published the story of my involvement with the Baha'i
Faith, the reasons why I joined and the reasons why I left on a number
of online forums. It appeared first on the open ex-baha'i group on
yahoo where I received helpful feedback from a few ex-baha'is. I then
reposted it on the yahoo baha'i-unmoderated group where a number of
BIGS gave me their comments including Bill Garbetti who said it seemed
to him that I had never fully accepted Baha'u'llah at all. Eric asked
me to post it on his ex-baha'i discussion group list where again I
received comments from a number of posters. He then asked me if he
could post it on his website in a slightly edited format, and added a
postscript detailing some private e-mail correspondence between us.
You yourself gave me some feedback in private about it when you were
still a BIGS, you told me in no uncertain terms that I should never
have joined because I still believed in the Trinity, and you told me
that I never 'got' the Bab. Indeed, you asked an American contributor
to Baha'i Studies to explain the station of the Bab to me and
forwarded his reply.
So, I have been perfectly open about my time as a Baha'i and have
already spoken at some length online about my involvement with the
faith.
Brid
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Jerry Joplin" <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
Contemporaneous with what, exactly. Shoghi wasn't alive at the time the
letter was sent to Victoria and she was dead at the time he made the remark
about his having a report as to what she said in response to it.
Are you suggesting that they corresponded on the issue?
>
> Jerry
>
>
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Jerry Joplin" <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
> Brid wrote:
> > Well, Jerry, no less a person than Shoghi Effendi himself said that
> > there was no written evidence that Queen Victoria ever said it. Here's
> > the relevant documentation (carefully copied to avoid any danger of
> > misquotation) from a letter of the Research Dept. of the UHJ dated 6
> > November 1997 :
> >
> > The Research Department has been able to find a statement in a letter
> > on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, specifically regarding the reaction of
> > Queen Victoria to the Tablet addressed to her:
> >
> >
> > ...as we have no written statement to this effect, we cannot be sure
> > about it. We do not know where the original of this statement is.
> > (21 February 1942 to an individual)
> >
> >
> > http://bahai-library.org/uhj/napoleon.victoria.html
>
> If you are going to side with Errol in an accusation that the Baha'i
> Faith is essentially committing fraud by proclaiming some statements
> from Queen Victoria which were never stated, then the burden of proof is
> upon you to show that she *didn't* say it. Or that Shoghi Effendi
> intentionally made up the remark.
I find nowhere that Brid has sided with Error on this matter or herself
alleged that the BF is perpetrating a fraud.
> You have none of this. In fact, the balance of evidence even supports
> the statement. The UHJ is just saying that they don't have a written
> statement to the effect, but there is no retraction.
What do they have to retract?
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
>
>
>
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Jerry Joplin" <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
> Dermod Ryder wrote:
> > None of the current members of the British Royalty were around at that
time
> > so even they would be hard pushed to offer any firm opinion on the
matter.
> > If you want to assert the validity of the remark attributed to Victoria
the
> > onus of proof is on you - to say that there is no evidence she didn't
say it
> > is insufficient.
>
> The burden of proof is on the accuser. In this case Errol accused
> Baha'is of fraud, or in his words "porky pies made about Queen Marie of
> Romaina being a bahai."
This is specifically about the letter to Victoria - Marie of Romania is of
no relevance. I have not accused anybody of fraud in this matter. Had I
done so I obviously would have to prove such an accusation but as I didn't,
I don't have to. If you think that Error has done this, then take it up
with him. I stand by the comments that I have made - I am not responsible
for those made by others.
> The weight of existing evidence even supports the Baha'i view.
There is NO extant evidence that Victoria made the remark that is attributed
to her as is admitted by the Research Department. Shoghi, knowing that, was
careful to describe it as a report.
> And it
> certainly does not rise to the level of fraud "beyond reasonable doubt."
I never said that it did.
Jerry Joplin
Shoghi Effendi's statement is more contemporaneous than anything you
have presented, and that's all I need to know.
Jerry
Jerry Joplin
> This is specifically about the letter to Victoria - Marie of Romania is of
> no relevance. I have not accused anybody of fraud in this matter. Had I
> done so I obviously would have to prove such an accusation but as I didn't,
> I don't have to. If you think that Error has done this, then take it up
> with him. I stand by the comments that I have made - I am not responsible
> for those made by others.
Errol has accused the Baha'i Faith of perpetrating fraud in *this*
thread. It includes both the accusations mentioned about Queen Marie
and Baha'is perpetrating a "bahai myth on the comment made by Queen
Victoria."
> There is NO extant evidence that Victoria made the remark that is attributed
> to her as is admitted by the Research Department. Shoghi, knowing that, was
> careful to describe it as a report.
So the worst you can say is that the statement is unverifiable, the same
thing the letter from the UHJ said. There is no proof of the fraud
that *Errol* is alleging.
Jerry
Susan Maneck
>> Give me a break, Dermod. He said he wasn't infallible in matters of
>history,
>> not historical import.
>
>Same difference!
>
Dermod,
No, it *isn't* the same. Shoghi Effendi can be wrong about whether the Seven
Martyrs of Yazd died on a Tuesday or a Wednesday. That has nothing to do with
his function as Guardian. But to suggest he would advertise to the Baha'i world
that a European Queen had embraced Baha'u'lah's Faith (which presumably would
have entailed forging letters from her, etc.) would reflect on his integrity
not simply his knowledge.
>I
>was merely trying to point out to that clampit, Janis, that Shoghi's
>thoughts on matters historical carry no more importance that those of any
>informed historian, amateur or professional.
Jerry has seen my posting on SRB regarding infallibility and he is well aware
of its limits. In fact, he once indicated that my senisble approach to this
issue is one of things that persuaded him to declare.
>Ah! Speculation!
Not very much speculation. We know they were pressuring her at the time, she
said so.
>Now why do you condemn it when it comes from me (and
>others) if it's critical of your POV yet pass it off for your own
>intentions.
First, I'm not speculating in a vacuum like you guys were regarding the
Guardian's sex life. And there is a big difference when wild speculations lead
to scurrilous accusations as they were here.
>> We know they wouldn't let her go on pilgrimage.
>
>More speculation?
Nope. That's a matter of record. They stopped her from getting off the ship. Do
you need me to show you where she described this along with the pressure they
were putting on her? She told the Guardian she would have stood up to them but
she had her daughter to protect.
>
>>As to
>> her daughter, obviously she had second thoughts afterwards.
>
>And more still?
Her mother said at one time she had accepted the Faith along with her. Later
the daughter became a Mother Superior. Now, either her mother lied or the
daughter had second thoughts later. What seems more likely to you? I know,
you'd probably rather believe the Guardian forged those letters!
Susan
Susan Maneck
>Contemporaneous with what, exactly. Shoghi wasn't alive at the time the
>letter was sent to Victoria and she was dead at the time he made the remark
>about his having a report as to what she said in response to it.
Wait a minute. Are we talking about Queen Maria or Queen Victoria?
reli...@yahoo.com
bridci...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/11/03 7:20 pm:
> Errol,
>
> I have already published the story of my involvement with the Baha'i
> Faith, the reasons why I joined and the reasons why I left on a number
> of online forums. It appeared first on the open ex-baha'i group on
> yahoo where I received helpful feedback from a few ex-baha'is. I then
> reposted it on the yahoo baha'i-unmoderated group where a number of
> BIGS gave me their comments including Bill Garbetti who said it seemed
> to him that I had never fully accepted Baha'u'llah at all. Eric asked
> me to post it on his ex-baha'i discussion group list where again I
> received comments from a number of posters. He then asked me if he
> could post it on his website in a slightly edited format, and added a
> postscript detailing some private e-mail correspondence between us.
> You yourself gave me some feedback in private about it when you were
> still a BIGS, you told me in no uncertain terms that I should never
> have joined because I still believed in the Trinity, and you told me
> that I never 'got' the Bab. Indeed, you asked an American contributor
> to Baha'i Studies to explain the station of the Bab to me and
> forwarded his reply.
>
> So, I have been perfectly open about my time as a Baha'i and have
> already spoken at some length online about my involvement with the
> faith.
>
Brid,
I understand this, and also understand the difficult time you went
through, accepting, or not accepting certain bahai beliefs. But as I
said in my above post I am not going to analyse any of what you have
said about the bahai Faith or analyse anything you shared with me
confidentially with another Bahai on TRB, that is your prerogative to
do so not mine.............Errol
Susan Maneck
>Saying "X is a Baha'i but he doesn't know it yet" is normal
>Baha'i happy talk for saying that they like someone.
LOL
Too true!
Susan Maneck
>understandable human reaction. Errol himself is very exercised about
>Baha'is claiming that Baha'u'llah is the Return of Christ, but
>reluctant to acknowledge that at one time he believed this very thing
>himself:
That's a good point.
Susan Maneck
>There is no proof. Both of the above statements are conditional. Shoghi
>acknowledges that it is reported she said that whilst the Beeb notes it as
>an allegation.
I have to reluctantly agree with Dermod. Without knowing Shoghi Effendi's
original source it is difficult to determine the historicity of a statement
such as this.
Susan Maneck
>the Faith as anyone else was in those days (there wasn't
>necessarily an official membership procedure in those
>early days).
Exactly.
Susan Maneck
>...as we have no written statement to this effect, we cannot be sure
>about it. We do not know where the original of this statement is.
>(21 February 1942 to an individual)
Thanks for that source Brid.
I think there is a better than good chance that Queen Victoria never saw the
Tablet addressed to her, though every effort was made to get it to her.
warmest, Susan
Susan Maneck
>Faith is essentially committing fraud by proclaiming some statements
>from Queen Victoria which were never stated, then the burden of proof is
>upon you to show that she *didn't* say it. Or that Shoghi Effendi
>intentionally made up the remark.
Slow down, Jerry. Shoghi Effendi put it much more tentatively than that.
Obviously there was a rumor to this effect.
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Jerry Joplin" <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
> Dermod Ryder wrote:
> > This is specifically about the letter to Victoria - Marie of Romania is
of
> > no relevance. I have not accused anybody of fraud in this matter. Had I
> > done so I obviously would have to prove such an accusation but as I
didn't,
> > I don't have to. If you think that Error has done this, then take it up
> > with him. I stand by the comments that I have made - I am not
responsible
> > for those made by others.
>
> Errol has accused the Baha'i Faith of perpetrating fraud in *this*
> thread. It includes both the accusations mentioned about Queen Marie
> and Baha'is perpetrating a "bahai myth on the comment made by Queen
> Victoria."
What Error says or alleges has fuck all to do with me and my argument.
> > There is NO extant evidence that Victoria made the remark that is
attributed
> > to her as is admitted by the Research Department. Shoghi, knowing that,
was
> > careful to describe it as a report.
>
> So the worst you can say is that the statement is unverifiable, the same
> thing the letter from the UHJ said. There is no proof of the fraud
> that *Errol* is alleging.
Not the worst I can say - this happens to be the TRUTH of the matter whether
the Grumpies agree with it or not. You wanna argue the issue of fraud, you
do that with whoever asserted it but don't associate me with it, unless you
can show That I alleged it.
>
> Jerry
>
John R MacLeod
writer who would say anything for publicity and used ghostwriters rather a
lot. I must admit I can't find anything quickly but I'm sure I've read
amusing pieces satirising Queen Marie and her prediliction for getting har
name mentioned in all possible contexts. Articles, by the way, that had
nothing to do with the faith.
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Jerry Joplin" <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
What the feck are you rattling about? Shoghi's statement is NOT, repeat NOT
contemporaneous with any of the events surrounding the letter to Victoria.
FYI "contemporaneous" relates to occuring at the same time. For Shoghi's
comment to be contemporaneous it had to have been made at the time that the
letter was sent to and received by Victoria. Without checking the exact
date (which is actually unimportant in this context) it was sent between
1868 and 1877. Bahaullah died in 1892; Shoghi was born in 1896 or 1897
(there are differences in the sources); Victoria died in 1901. Shoghi made
the comment in 1942. What exactly is contemporaneous in his comment-
contemporaneous with what?
And once again I don't have to present anything - you're the one who
supports the assertion that Victoria made the comment attributed to her. If
you want to believe you're free to do so but if you try to tell me you have
proff and the proof is what you have presented here, I'm laughing in your
face!
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
> >I
> >was merely trying to point out to that clampit, Janis, that Shoghi's
> >thoughts on matters historical carry no more importance that those of any
> >informed historian, amateur or professional.
>
> Jerry has seen my posting on SRB regarding infallibility and he is well
aware
> of its limits. In fact, he once indicated that my senisble approach to
this
> issue is one of things that persuaded him to declare.
He doesn't present as being at all aware of the limits on infallibility - at
least not in this thread.
> >Ah! Speculation!
>
> Not very much speculation. We know they were pressuring her at the time,
she
> said so.
>
> >Now why do you condemn it when it comes from me (and
> >others) if it's critical of your POV yet pass it off for your own
> >intentions.
>
> First, I'm not speculating in a vacuum like you guys were regarding the
> Guardian's sex life. And there is a big difference when wild speculations
lead
> to scurrilous accusations as they were here.
This is not speculation in a vacuum. We have Michael's account inter alia
but you reject that because he was declared a CB. If those are sufficient
grounds for doing that, then I'm entitled, by the same reasoning, to assume
that anything emanating from the Grumpies, not to my liking, is a
terminological inexactitude.
<SNIP>
> Her mother said at one time she had accepted the Faith along with her.
Later
> the daughter became a Mother Superior. Now, either her mother lied or the
> daughter had second thoughts later. What seems more likely to you? I know,
> you'd probably rather believe the Guardian forged those letters!
Now that case is still wide open and will remain so until the document is
authenticated by a proper process of forensic examination.
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
> >
> >Contemporaneous with what, exactly. Shoghi wasn't alive at the time the
> >letter was sent to Victoria and she was dead at the time he made the
remark
> >about his having a report as to what she said in response to it.
>
> Wait a minute. Are we talking about Queen Maria or Queen Victoria?
I was talking about Victoria. As usual, I don't think Janis knows what she
is talking about.
Jerry Joplin
> And once again I don't have to present anything - you're the one who
> supports the assertion that Victoria made the comment attributed to her. If
> you want to believe you're free to do so but if you try to tell me you have
> proff and the proof is what you have presented here, I'm laughing in your
> face!
I've said the balance of evidence seems to support Queen Victoria saying
it. If you want to argue about it, go bother someone else. I'm simply
trying to refute an accusation of fraud made by Errol (in this thread)
against the Baha'i Faith.
Jerry
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"John R MacLeod" <jrma...@consultant.com> wrote in message
news:bou8bt$1io916$1...@ID-73584.news.uni-berlin.de...
Outside of a Bahai context the only reference I have ever seen to Marie was
that she was a "sexual athlete" obviously inordinately fond of the old
horizontal jogging.
Jerry Joplin
> "Susan Maneck " <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message:
>>
>>Jerry has seen my posting on SRB regarding infallibility and he is well
> aware
>>of its limits. In fact, he once indicated that my senisble approach to
> this
>>issue is one of things that persuaded him to declare.
>
>
> He doesn't present as being at all aware of the limits on infallibility - at
> least not in this thread.
I didn't say anything about Shoghi Effendi's infallibility in this
thread, except to say that it was inapplicable. The issue isn't
infallibility, its the contemporaneity of Shoghi Effendi's statement,
which is the best we have. And Susan's right, after spending some time
with "Young Earth Creationists" I came to the conclusion that there
definitely has to be a rational limit on infallibility concerning
history, science, etc...
Jerry
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
> >
> >...as we have no written statement to this effect, we cannot be sure
> >about it. We do not know where the original of this statement is.
> >(21 February 1942 to an individual)
>
> Thanks for that source Brid.
>
> I think there is a better than good chance that Queen Victoria never saw
the
> Tablet addressed to her, though every effort was made to get it to her.
For starters it would have had to be translated.
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Jerry Joplin" <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
> Dermod Ryder wrote:
> > And once again I don't have to present anything - you're the one who
> > supports the assertion that Victoria made the comment attributed to her.
If
> > you want to believe you're free to do so but if you try to tell me you
have
> > proff and the proof is what you have presented here, I'm laughing in
your
> > face!
>
> I've said the balance of evidence seems to support Queen Victoria saying
> it.
"And the fly will marry the bumblebee"
> If you want to argue about it, go bother someone else.
I wasn't arguing. You were and still are. I can accept the facts of the
situation.
> I'm simply
> trying to refute an accusation of fraud made by Errol (in this thread)
> against the Baha'i Faith.
You take that up with Error. We'll make a movie about it "Splasher meets
Son of Splasher." You and he are well matched for an encounter - a clash of
two intellectually challenged giants in the world of the intellectually
challenged.
Rod
> >I think the truth is that Queen Marie was as much a member of
> >the Faith as anyone else was in those days (there wasn't
> >necessarily an official membership procedure in those
> >early days).
>
> Exactly.
Do you mean 'exactly'- "exactly" or "a little bit,well, not
really on reflection" exactly like last time?
Rod
> >If you are going to side with Errol in an accusation that the Baha'i
> >Faith is essentially committing fraud by proclaiming some statements
> >from Queen Victoria which were never stated, then the burden of proof is
> >upon you to show that she *didn't* say it. Or that Shoghi Effendi
> >intentionally made up the remark.
>
> Slow down, Jerry.
Nha.....Gunnit Jerry!
Plant the foot!
Your on a winner sunshine!
Full steam ahead!
Make em prove Vicky *didn't* say stuff!
That's the way!
Knockem dead champ!
Put the towel down Susan....he's doing great.
Rod
How many posts did it take you to get Dermod to swear Jerry?
Was it under your previous 'piss people off' record?
Methinks the end is nigh.
Dermod Ryder <grim_reaper MO...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bou6vh$lg4$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
Brid
And thank you Susan. I presume now that you have said it, Jerry will
be better able to accept it with good grace.
Brid
Brid
That wasn't what the message I took from your above post. There seemed
to be an implied threat 'Brid wouldn't like it if I....' which I found
difficult to understand since I have already subjected my attitude to
the Baha'i Faith to analysis and public comment. There is no big deal
in any case, nobody put a gun to my head or twisted my arm up my back
to join the Baha'is, I joined thinking it offered me something which
it didn't, I left bitterly disillusioned. I wrote up my story as a
therapeutic means of helping me to understand my own motivation, and
to add my voice to the existing collection of ex-baha'i stories. When
I was considering leaving I found such stories from others of immense
comfort since it was difficult to fully discuss things with friends
who were still Baha'is and that included you at that time.
Brid
Brid
> Brid wrote:
> > Well, Jerry, no less a person than Shoghi Effendi himself said that
> > there was no written evidence that Queen Victoria ever said it. Here's
> > the relevant documentation (carefully copied to avoid any danger of
> > misquotation) from a letter of the Research Dept. of the UHJ dated 6
> > November 1997 :
> >
> > The Research Department has been able to find a statement in a letter
> > on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, specifically regarding the reaction of
> > Queen Victoria to the Tablet addressed to her:
> >
> >
> > ...as we have no written statement to this effect, we cannot be sure
> > about it. We do not know where the original of this statement is.
> > (21 February 1942 to an individual)
> >
> >
>
> If you are going to side with Errol in an accusation that the Baha'i
> Faith is essentially committing fraud by proclaiming some statements
> from Queen Victoria which were never stated, then the burden of proof is
> upon you to show that she *didn't* say it. Or that Shoghi Effendi
> intentionally made up the remark.
How does my providing you with the link and the text of the message
from the Guardian as related by a department of your own UHJ
constitute siding with Errol in accusations of fraud?
>
> You have none of this. In fact, the balance of evidence even supports
> the statement. The UHJ is just saying that they don't have a written
> statement to the effect, but there is no retraction.
Jerry, I hate to state the obvious, but historians usually deal in
written records, and as your research department has admitted there is
no written record extant. And without a written record you do not have
the smoking gun evidence necessary to clinch this thing. In such a
case we are then thrown back on building a credible thesis taking into
account other established factors. We would have to start by asking
ourselves how likely it was that a letter in an unfamiliar script and
language would have been translated and presented to the Queen. Susan
has already said that the balance of probability is against Queen
Victoria ever having seen the letter. I would agree with her. We would
also have to ask ourselves who could have been with the Queen when she
read the letter and heard her utter this supposed Gamaliel-like
response. If we could identify that person or persons we might be able
to check their surviving records. We would also have to ask, given
what has been established about Queen Victoria's own attitudes to
matters of race and religion how likely a positive response to a
missive from such a source would be in any case.
Brid
Susan Maneck
>but you reject that because he was declared a CB.
No, I reject it because Michael is a loony and a jerk who outdoes even Nima
Hazini. He initially lost his voting rights after raping someone at a BNASAA
retreat. He has told blatant lies here which impinge on the character of
people I know. He accuses one of them of having seduced him at the World
Centre. The reason Michael tried to slur this man's name is because he is the
one who persuaded the victim of Michael's rape to report the incident. When
Michael was at the World Centre he was going around telling people he had
untreated syphillis.Who is going to jump in bed with him? I've never known a CB
to be quite a sleezy as Michael is. Ask him how the investigation into his
father's murder is going? I understand he was the chief suspect.
Susan Maneck
>I was talking about Victoria. As usual, I don't think Janis knows what she
>is talking about.
>
Dermod,
I'm not sure it was Jerry that started mixing things up. But Shoghi Effendi was
in a position to know Queen Maria's relationship to the Faith as for Queen
Victoria's alleged comment, Shoghi Effendi reported a rumor for which we have
no collaborating evidence.
warmest, Susan
Susan Maneck
>For starters it would have had to be translated.
>
Dear Dermod,
I think it was. I can't remember all the details off the top of my head, but I
think it was delivered to a British official who was in a position to see to
the translating. But such a letter would have to go through several layers
before reaching the Queen. It strikes me as plausible that any official along
the line may have placed these words in her mouth and somehow that's what got
back to the Baha'is. But I'm just speculating.
Susan Maneck
>be better able to accept it with good grace.
Dear Brid,
I think what is happening here is that you got people like George accusing the
Guardian of deliberate fraud in connection with these kinds of things. When
that gets combined with others assertions that Queen Victoria never said such a
thing, it becomes difficult for someone like Jerry to sort out who is arguing
what.
Cal E. Rollins
Pig Queen, indeed! Are you Jerry or what? Since when do you determine
what's difficult "for someone like Jerry" to sort out? If you said that
to me I'd kick you in your lard butt. And if Jerry doesn't he's either
a saint, or as I suspect and have hinted to, one of your Star-like
disguises. --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
This is interesting. But don't you have fear of being sued and losing
your job? You're a brave and impetuous woman. Who is this Michael and
why isn't he hawling your lard ass and the Faith into court? I sure
would if I were he. --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
I read somewhere that it was Ugo Giachery who worked in the Vatican
library and found the Tablet to the Pope and became interested in the
Faith. Is that Urban Legend? --Cal
Jerry Joplin
> And thank you Susan. I presume now that you have said it, Jerry will
> be better able to accept it with good grace.
Accept *what* with good grace? The possibility that Queen Victoria
never said the remark? That's obvious from Shoghi Effendi's statement
itself. Although I also appreciate your posting, thanks!
If you weigh the balance of evidence, there seems to be more support for
her saying the statement, then against. And certainly there is no
evidence behind an accusation, made by Errol, that Baha'is are
purposefully perpetuating a myth.
Jerry
Jerry Joplin
No, no.. Definitely not a saint, and no worries Cal, I didn't take
offense, at all, at the remark. Hey, once you've endured a few of
Dermod and Rod's rants nothing phases me anymore :-) God works in
mysterious ways sometimes!
Jerry
Cal E. Rollins
Well I'm glad to hear it. Now you know why I like TRB. Surviving and
having fun in this Nest of Vipers is like living and thriving in New
York City. Like Ol' Blue Eyes used to sing about that place, "If I can
make it there, I'll make it anywhere..." --Cal
Rod
> >
> >I was talking about Victoria. As usual, I don't think Janis knows what
she
> >is talking about.
> >
>
> Dermod,
>
> I'm not sure it was Jerry that started mixing things up. But Shoghi
Effendi was
Bloody classic! Let Jerry off his own hook and try to put the blame on
Shoghi!
> Queen Maria's relationship to the Faith as for Queen
> Victoria's alleged comment, Shoghi Effendi reported a rumor for which we
have
> no collaborating evidence.
Well, according to your preset standards of substantiating nothing....it
must be true.
Brid
Cal,
Dermod posted up the reference to this one in "Unofficial Bahai Lore"
by David Piff - at page 334:
C3b-004 Hand of the Cause Ugo Giachery located Bahaullah's Tablet to
the
Pope in the Vatican Archives but could not remove it. (He tried).
Brid
Brid
> Brid wrote:
> > And thank you Susan. I presume now that you have said it, Jerry will
> > be better able to accept it with good grace.
>
> Accept *what* with good grace? The possibility that Queen Victoria
> never said the remark? That's obvious from Shoghi Effendi's statement
> itself. Although I also appreciate your posting, thanks!
>
Accept the possibility that Queen Victoria never even saw the letter
let alone made a remark about it! I'm glad that you've finally seen
that it's obvious from Shoghi Effendi's remark that the possibility
exists that she never said it.
> If you weigh the balance of evidence, there seems to be more support for
> her saying the statement, then against.
I have weighed the balance of evidence and I disagree that there is
more support for her saying it.
And certainly there is no
> evidence behind an accusation, made by Errol, that Baha'is are
> purposefully perpetuating a myth.
I can't answer for Errol and his accusations, you would need to take
that up directly with him. I'm also glad you are no longer accusing me
of siding with Errol in alleging fraud simply because I had the
decency to provide the relevant text of your Guardian!
>
> Jerry
Brid
Jerry Joplin
> I can't answer for Errol and his accusations, you would need to take
> that up directly with him. I'm also glad you are no longer accusing me
> of siding with Errol in alleging fraud simply because I had the
> decency to provide the relevant text of your Guardian!
Brid, I never "accused" you of siding with Errol. I said *if* you are
siding with Errol then its going to require evidence of the
intententional fraudulent nature of the claim. *If* you're *not*
siding with Errol, then the comment didn't apply.
Jerry
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
> > I presume now that you have said it, Jerry will
> >be better able to accept it with good grace.
>
> Dear Brid,
>
> I think what is happening here is that you got people like George accusing
the
> Guardian of deliberate fraud in connection with these kinds of things.
Even Janis has been forced to acknowledge that George didn't accuse the
Guardian of fraud.
> When
> that gets combined with others assertions that Queen Victoria never said
such a
> thing, it becomes difficult for someone like Jerry to sort out who is
arguing
> what.
True ... which begs the question as to who is responsible for sending him
here to demonstrate his stupidity? If only he could remember what he and
others actually said and could distinguish between a question and a
statement, it might be possible to teach him to try to ascertain who said
what and why. After that we'll move into the more complex field of
comprehension?
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Cal E. Rollins" <crol...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:752-3FB...@storefull-2338.public.lawson.webtv.net...
It's folklore, me old mucker, it's in Piff's book!
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Jerry Joplin" <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
news:vr7nds...@corp.supernews.com...
> > And thank you Susan. I presume now that you have said it, Jerry will
> > be better able to accept it with good grace.
>
> Accept *what* with good grace? The possibility that Queen Victoria
> never said the remark? That's obvious from Shoghi Effendi's statement
> itself. Although I also appreciate your posting, thanks!
>
> If you weigh the balance of evidence, there seems to be more support for
> her saying the statement, then against.
How many times does this have to be repeated before it penetrates your
dormant organ - THERE IS NO FECKING EVIDENCE THAT SHE FECKING WELL FECKING
EVER MADE THE FECKING COMMENT IN THE FIRST FECKING PLACE. WOULD YOU FECKING
EVER FECKING GET THAT FECKING FACT INTO YOUR FECKING FAT FECKING THICK HEAD
YOU FECKING FECKLESS IDIOT.
> And certainly there is no
> evidence behind an accusation, made by Errol, that Baha'is are
> purposefully perpetuating a myth.
Since there is no direct hard evidence that Victoria ever saw the letter,
never mind pass comment, favourable or otherwise, upon it, anybody repeating
the story, with a purpose to widely disseminate or perpetuate it, in such a
way as to indicate it is soundly grounded on a factually correct and
historically accurate basis, knowing this not to be the case, with the aim
of leading a listener to an erroneous conclusion, predicated solely on her
alleged reaction to this letter, that Victoria was a wise monarch or that
the claims of the Bahai founder have thereby acquired something akin to
Royal approval, if not formal adoption, is guilty of making a
terminologically incorrect statement,
>
> Jerry
>
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Brid" <bridci...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d5a5c190.03111...@posting.google.com...
Great minds think alike! Think again, Cal, about being enumerated in the
hallowed sanctuary of the Black Irish!
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
> >
> >I was talking about Victoria. As usual, I don't think Janis knows what
she
> >is talking about.
> >
>
> Dermod,
>
> I'm not sure it was Jerry that started mixing things up.
Don't worry! We are sure!
But Shoghi Effendi was
> in a position to know Queen Maria's relationship to the Faith as for Queen
> Victoria's alleged comment, Shoghi Effendi reported a rumor for which we
have
> no collaborating evidence.
Or even corroborating?
Susan Maneck
>True ... which begs the question as to who is responsible for sending him
>here to demonstrate his stupidity?
Dermod, I wouldn't send anyone to this den of vultures.
He was lurking here before his declaration, trying to figure out if the
dissidents had a case.
Guess what he decided?
Paul Hammond
> "Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
> news:c977f97b.03111...@posting.google.com...
> > And, of course, in Haifa and Israel, there are special
> > rules that don't apply anywhere else.
>
> Now there's an understatement if ever I have seen one.
I mean that in Isreal Baha'is are not allowed to accept
new members - it's kinda irrelevant to the rest of the
discussion.
But, the fact that people *now* say "he's a Baha'i and
doesn't know it" has about as much content as when
an old-fashioned person praises someone by saying
"he's a real christian gent". That second statement
is really an expression of approval of a person's
character, not a statement about their religion,
and the first statement usually means that someone's
general viewpoints already accord with many of the
Baha'i tenet - again, not usually meant as an actual
statement about a person's faith.
Besides, what bearing can a modern Baha'i figure of
speech possibly have on the truth value of a
fact about a historical figure from the first half
of the 20th century?
It's a red-herring - like Error's reference to Blake's
7 to back up his disgusting conspiracy theories about
Dr Kelly.
Paul
Paul Hammond
Don't you like being reminded of your
earlier incarnation, George "born-again Baha'i" Flaming
reli...@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<a38fb763.0311...@posting.google.com>...
> in article d5a5c190.0311...@posting.google.com, Brid at
> bridci...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/11/03 10:31 am:
>
> > This is, of course, not an unknown phenomenon, and a perfectly
> > understandable human reaction. Errol himself is very exercised about
> > Baha'is claiming that Baha'u'llah is the Return of Christ, but
> > reluctant to acknowledge that at one time he believed this very thing
> > himself:
> >
> > They are all still waiting for the return of Christ. little do they
> > know he has come and gone and has been buried in Akka since 1892. his name was
> > Baha'u'llah.........................George
> >
> > Odd Bedfellows
> >
> > From: george.fleming2 (view other messages by this author)
> > Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 09:28:05
>
> I am very reluctant to declare "I am at present 100% sure now I do not
> believe baha'u'llah was/is the return of Christ". The above statement
> was not a 100& declaration I ever believed Baha'u'llah was the return
> of Christ as I have always had doubts, it is a common Baha'i belief,
> but many who join like myself have doubts once they become members.
> Had I been 100% sure in my mind I would never have just resigned my
> membership over a dispute on the internet. I had intended to leave
> long before that. Circumstances related to the political and religious
> upheaval of the country I live in had very much to do with one of the
> reasons I joined the bahai's. Other's were art and social reasons, and
> the only way to know how any religion works properly is to join it and
> find out for youself. Had I had access to cyber-space 10 years earlier
> I dare say I would have left much sooner that I did.
>
> I think Brid should concentrate on her own reasons, why she joined and
> left the baha'is and not start to analyse others why they decided to
> do so. She certainly wouldn't like it if I started to analyse her
> reasons for joining or leaving openly on TRB. Like Eric, Robert and
> QisQos all were bahai's at one time and have left and become committed
> christians. Like them I have freedom of concience to do likewise
> whether Brid approves or not.
>
> Errol
Paul Hammond
> >
> >> Give me a break, Dermod. He said he wasn't infallible in matters of
> history,
> >> not historical import.
> >
> >Same difference!
> >
>
> Dermod,
>
> No, it *isn't* the same.
You're alright Susan - I know what you were talking about
there.
Shoghi Effendi could be wrong about history, but he
was certainly going to *make* history. Baha'i believe
his infallibility extends to his decisions in protection
and leadership of the Faith, which is certainly a
matter that *could* have historical import (and certainly
are important in Baha'i Studies, even if the faith never
actually develops how Baha'is believe it will)
Paul
Paul Hammond
> >If you are going to side with Errol in an accusation that the Baha'i
> >Faith is essentially committing fraud by proclaiming some statements
> >from Queen Victoria which were never stated, then the burden of proof is
> >upon you to show that she *didn't* say it. Or that Shoghi Effendi
> >intentionally made up the remark.
>
> Obviously there was a rumor to this effect.
>
I think we're back with the Fatima stories, and the last letter
to the Pope talking about the letters "B" and "A" here, aren't
we?
D'you think Fatima was looking in to the future to read Rod's
Scenario??
Anyway, "If this is of God then it will propser" is very
little other than non-committal general wisdom for the
time, even if she did say such a thing. Victorians
were always going around "trusting to Providence" and
suchlike.
Paul
Paul Hammond
Susan Maneck
>You're alright Susan - I know what you were talking about
>there.
>
>Shoghi Effendi could be wrong about history, but he
>was certainly going to *make* history.
Thank you, Paul.
Pat Kohli
Brid wrote:
> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3FB1316A...@ameritel.net>...
> > reli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Why would her own very daughter go to great lengths to deny her mother
> > > was ever a bahai?
> >
> > The daughter is Christian clergy. She may believe that an apostate from
> > Christianity would be damned, and, that by acknowledging some name other
> > than Jesus Christ as the most recent manifestation of God, she would be an
> > apostate from Christianity. In my mind, that is why the daughter would want
> > to believe her mother remained a Christian. I really don't think it is so
> > hard to understand that the child wants her mother to be the same religion
> > that she is. However, I didn't see that any big deal was made of the matter
> > by Mother Alexandra. the big deal seems to be made by other parties who
> > prefer to repeat this discredited tale, w/ minimal provocation.
>
> Pat, I'm experiencing a real sense of deja-vu here as the Queen Marie
> issue is the one I made my debut with here on TRB and even had the
> chutzpah to cross swords with the legendary Pat Kholi.
He's a dargon!
> I just wanted
> to say that as Princess Ileana of Romania ended her days as Mother
> Alexandra, foundress of an Orthodox convent in the USA, it may well be
> that there was a natural embarrasment about admitting her mother's
> interest in religious movements outside Christianity.
This is a point which had eluded me. I had thought these were two different daughters, having forgotten
that some nuns take new names. I have an aunt who is a nun, but she is still Aunt Rose Marie, to me.
> Queen Marie was
> quite a character and, as we discussed before, her own family embodied
> the three traditions of Anglicanism (Queen M), Catholicism (her
> husband) and Orthodoxy (her children).
Some of the Hohenzollerns may have also been Evangelicals; we call them Lutherans in the US. I believe
her husband was Catholic, though. Her Hohenzollern family had a pragmatic approach to Christianity;
this is beyond the scope of the group, of course. Suffice it to say that the rest of Christendom has
not followed NI's model very closely on this detail (thank God!).
> From the non-Baha'i material I
> have read about Queen M. it seems clear that she was interested in
> exploring religious movements and philosophies outside these
> boundaries. She was, for example, also very taken with Frank
> Buchmann's Oxford movement, and even had him to stay at the palace. I
> can well understand that Mother Alexandra might have been reluctant to
> face up to this rather unorthodox (small o) behaviour on the part of
> her mother and even more reluctant to admit to any youthful flirtation
> with it herself.
>
Very practical, too.
>
> This is, of course, not an unknown phenomenon, and a perfectly
> understandable human reaction. Errol himself is very exercised about
> Baha'is claiming that Baha'u'llah is the Return of Christ, but
> reluctant to acknowledge that at one time he believed this very thing
> himself:
>
> They are all still waiting for the return of Christ. little do they
> know he
> has come and gone and has been buried in Akka since 1892. his name was
> Baha'u'llah.........................George
>
> Odd Bedfellows
>
> From: george.fleming2 (view other messages by this author)
> Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 09:28:05
>
> I point this out not from any position of superiority because I also
> was reluctant to admit that I had been involved with the Baha'i Faith
> myself. In the immediate aftermath of my resignation I went into a
> period of denial about ever having been a Baha'i and tried to pretend
> that it had never happened. It was not a good strategy and it was not
> until I did admit the reality of my involvement that I was able to
> truly move on and deal with the experience more constructively.
>
As you probably know, I am still in denial about my Catholicism, so, I thank you for summoning me to my
reckoning. Yes, I was a Roman Catholic. I can cry that I was tricked. I can pretend that it never
happened. Yet, it did happen.
>
> To return to Queen Marie, I have asked on Orthodox newsgroups if
> anyone has any information on her family's flirtation with the Baha'i
> Faith and have never received any replies. One group were recently
> discussing candidates for the next American Orthodox saint and Mother
> Alexandra was one of the front runners. Do you think I should tell
> them? :-)
I'm sure that God approves of what she's done. Who are we mortals to question? Seriously, my brother
told me things about our childhood which I had forgotten, things I would have denied if anyone had asked
me directly - w/o prodding my memory, as my brother did.
A saint is someone who is in the presence of God. When I am in the presence of God, I don't remember
what I had for breakfast five years ago. If she may have forgotten some controversial aspects of her
life, that has no bearing. I think someone here has repeatedly shown us the superiority of the Socratic
approach, 'ask, don't tell'. If one is going to tell anyway, one wastes time with the asking. Let's be
practical ... right?
Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
Susan Maneck
>Anyway, "If this is of God then it will propser" is very
>little other than non-committal general wisdom for the
>time, even if she did say such a thing.
That's right.
Brid
On the contrary, I think it is tailored specifically to fit in with
the whole Prisoner and the Kings type mythology. If all the other
royal recipients of Baha'u'llah's letters who went out of their way to
ignore or rubbish them came to a sticky end, then ergo the one monarch
who survived must have been at worst non-commital or at best positive
in her response. The Papacy only survived because the Pope put the
letter into the Vatican Archives to be discovered years later by Ugo
Giachery, right Cal?
Brid
Rod
> >
> >True ... which begs the question as to who is responsible for sending him
> >here to demonstrate his stupidity?
>
> Dermod, I wouldn't send anyone to this den of vultures.
>
> He was lurking here before his declaration, trying to figure out if the
> dissidents had a case.
>
> Guess what he decided?
That an allegation of "unwarranted sexual advances"= "Kidnap, assault, rape"
That an observation regarding aspects of the "Baha'i community= "an attack
on the whole Baha'i faith"
That an old man with a bucket is just as effective as a whole modern fire
brigade.
That the "lots of Baha'i Grievance Procedures" he found are Top Secret
and cannot be shared.
And that if an intellectually disabled minor is in trouble all you have to
do is ask
them if they would like to call the police.
And you support him!- "exactly"
Jerry's analysis of the "dissident's case" has been a devastating blow.to
their
credibility;-)
Anyone keeping book on how long it will be before he goes over to join
Error?
Rod
Rod
>
> "Jerry Joplin" <Je...@JerryJoplinNoSchpamm.com> wrote in message
> news:vr7nds...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Brid wrote:
> > > And thank you Susan. I presume now that you have said it, Jerry will
> > > be better able to accept it with good grace.
> >
> > Accept *what* with good grace? The possibility that Queen Victoria
> > never said the remark? That's obvious from Shoghi Effendi's statement
> > itself. Although I also appreciate your posting, thanks!
> >
> > If you weigh the balance of evidence, there seems to be more support for
> > her saying the statement, then against.
>
> How many times does this have to be repeated before it penetrates your
> dormant organ - THERE IS NO FECKING EVIDENCE THAT SHE FECKING WELL FECKING
> EVER MADE THE FECKING COMMENT IN THE FIRST FECKING PLACE. WOULD YOU
FECKING
> EVER FECKING GET THAT FECKING FACT INTO YOUR FECKING FAT FECKING THICK
HEAD
> YOU FECKING FECKLESS IDIOT.
Come now Grim.....Jerry has been as busy as a one armed taxi driver with
crabs on this
issue....he has done a lot of research and given the matter a great deal of
serious consideration.
He has listened carefully and.......oh......hang on.......my Irish bacon is
crackling to a crisp....
Rod
>
> "Susan Maneck " <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20031113105309...@mb-m10.aol.com...
> > >
> > >I was talking about Victoria. As usual, I don't think Janis knows what
> she
> > >is talking about.
> > >
> >
> > Dermod,
> >
> > I'm not sure it was Jerry that started mixing things up.
>
> Don't worry! We are sure!
>
> But Shoghi Effendi was
> > in a position to know Queen Maria's relationship to the Faith as for
Queen
> > Victoria's alleged comment, Shoghi Effendi reported a rumor for which we
> have
> > no collaborating evidence.
>
> Or even corroborating?
I have a corollary to a corroboree....
If that's of any use to you?
Cal E. Rollins
I can't find my book on Ugo Giachery for the life of me. Anybody have
one? I read somewhere decades ago that he was a "Prince of the Church"
(whatever that means) and ran across that Tablet to the Pope and that's
how he became a Baha'i. Also that's why he was commissioned to do all
that Carrera marble negotiations with Italy for the Arc, because he had
all those inside connections. I'll be crushed if Dermod tells me none
of that is true, either. --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
Thanks. Unofficial Baha'i Lore by David Pitt. Is it the book that was
advertised in American Baha'i Review some time back? Is it on Internet?
Does he mention the Fatima Letters and the Portraits of the Popes? I'd
love to see what's true and not true I've been hearing all these years.
I was devastated to hear that we may not be a theocracy. Has that been
resolved? Is it in the book? --Cal
Paul Hammond
Does anyone here *seriously* believe that Napoleon III
lost his position because he didn't pay attention to
his missive from Baha'u'llah?
Paul
Paul Hammond
I'm sure you didn't miss Cal's joke here? One of the
best I've seen from his pen.
Paul