Evangelical US TV challenge on Bahaism. Re:The Story of a Bahai incest Victim R

Trueseeker

unread,

Aug 18, 2004, 4:14:59 AM8/18/04

to

in article 20040817195331...@mb-m06.aol.com, Susan Maneck
at sma...@aol.com wrote on 18/8/04 12:53 am:

>> http://www.pokrov.org/Abusers/perpetrators.html
>>
> Ah, so now our pious evangelical is going after the Orthodox as well.

Dr Maneck

Why do you love the Catholics and Orthodox so much? Is it because they
never challenge Bahaism in the US? Yet you dispise evangelicals with
a vengance. Is it because John Ankerberg and Dr. Walter Martin,
author of the classic book, "Kingdom of the Cults." are out to expose
the bahai-islamic-cult on US TV for what it is? The last thing
American citizens want today is the false return of Christ Baha'u'llah
http://www.stonehaven-press.com/ss.htm and a modification of Islamic
Sharia law forced upon them in in the form of a Book called the
Kitab-I-Iqan. I say three cheers for John Ankerberg for challenging
the false cult Bahaism on US TV Dr Maneck is apologetic for.

John Ankerberg's TV interview with two Baha'i AO members.

"My guests representing the Baha'i were Mrs. Mary Kay Radpour, a
frequent lecturer and teacher at the Baha'i schools nationwide; and
Mr. James Mock, a national representative for the Baha'i Faith from
Wilmet, Illinois. Representing biblical Christianity was my good
friend Dr. Walter Martin, author of the classic book, "Kingdom of the
Cults." The question was, "Is Jesus Christ alone the unique Son of
God, the only way of salvation, or was He just one of many wonderful
messengers God sent into the world?" Listen:

http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/ATRI-Bible-School/Spring-Bible-School/spring-bible-school-cult-proof-5.htm

Susan Maneck

unread,

Aug 18, 2004, 9:54:45 AM8/18/04

to

>
>Why do you love the Catholics and Orthodox so much?

It just doesn't occur to you George, that I just hate bigotry?

http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/
To subscribe: use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to ly...@list.jccc.net

Trueseeker

unread,

Aug 18, 2004, 10:31:25 AM8/18/04

to

in article 20040818095445...@mb-m27.aol.com, Susan Maneck
at sma...@aol.com wrote on 18/8/04 2:54 pm:

>>
>> Why do you love the Catholics and Orthodox so much?
>
> It just doesn't occur to you George, that I just hate bigotry?

Sure you hate John Ankerman because he is such a successful protestant
TV presenter thats bigotry.

Because your two Bahai's put up such a bad show you are all resentful
and angry at dear old John who is carrying the true message for
Christ.

george
>

Sufi Baha'i

unread,

Aug 18, 2004, 12:57:48 PM8/18/04

to

Are you becoming an Orthodox Christian George? There's an excellent
book "Becming Orthodox" by Peter E. Gillquist, that details the search
of a group of Protestants for the "True Church."

Also check out http://www.westernorthodox.com/index

A good set of resources for those who want to participate in the
ancient church's outreach to the West.

truth...@yahoo.co.uk (Trueseeker) wrote in message news:<7489c33e.04081...@posting.google.com>...

Trueseeker

unread,

Aug 18, 2004, 1:50:16 PM8/18/04

to

in article 189ac3e8.04081...@posting.google.com, Sufi
Baha'i at pe...@capebyron.com wrote on 18/8/04 5:57 pm:

> Are you becoming an Orthodox Christian George? There's an excellent
> book "Becming Orthodox" by Peter E. Gillquist, that details the search
> of a group of Protestants for the "True Church."

Thanks, I have attended some orthodox services here in my home town.
But like the Catholic Church and Anglican's you are not allowed to
share the Lords supper unless you become a full member of their
Church. I have found another church who allows me to share communion
in an interdenominational service. So I attend there now. I also need
more bible study classes through the week. The Orthodox Church here
does not provide that as It is only a small community with a part time
Father. But I respect them and wish them the best.

>
> Also check out http://www.westernorthodox.com/index
>
> A good set of resources for those who want to participate in the
> ancient church's outreach to the West.

I am still interested in Orthodox re- Celtic church history which has
re awakened in Ireland over this last decade or so. The problem with
Celtic Church history here is that the Catholic Church lays claim to
it, and the saints from it, even though Celtic Christianity was part
of a whole Orthodox scene long before the great schism between east &
west of 1065.

My good friend Roy garland who I was in company two weekends ago in
Westport Co Mayo wrote this article for the Irish news published last
monday. You may find it interesting: George

Inishboffin by Roy Garland 16 August 2004.

Last week I was driving through Cleggan on the coast of Galway when I
noticed boat trips to the nearby island of Inishboffin and was
reminded of
St Colman who established a monastery there in 667 AD. We had
previously
followed the life of Columcille from his birth place at Gartan County
Donegall to Derry and then Iona where he established a renown
monastery in
the 6th century. From there we followed Aidan, an Irish monk from
Iona who
founded Lindisfarne in northeast Northumbria. Aidan worked alongside
King
Oswald preaching among the people of north Britain.

Although Colman was born in Connaught he became a successor to Aidan
and
abbot-bishop of Lindisfarne. He led the Celtic party at the Synod of
Whitby
in St Hilda's Celtic monastery. All these monks followed Celtic
traditions,
which meant having hair shorn in the Irish manner as opposed to the
continental tonsure of Augustine's Roman monks who came in 597 AD.
There
were also differences in the method of calculating the date of Easter
and
other matters that now seem relatively trivial.

There were suspicions among the Celtic monks about Augustine and some
had
consulted a respected hermit who advised that if Augustine did not
rise to
greet them, he should be rejected as not being a humble man of God.
In the
event Augustine remained seated as he called upon the Celts to join in
seeking the conversion of the Anglo Saxons. The Celtic monks refused
and a
long controversy followed.

The differences came to a head in 664 AD at the Synod in Whitby.
Colman led
the Irish party in claiming the respected Columcille and St John as
among
their authorities. The Roman party asserted St Peter as their premier
authority for what had become worldwide practice, apart from the
‘obstinate
few in the remotest islands'. King Oswiu became convinced that to
disobey
such an authority would be sinful on the grounds that Peter was
gatekeeper
of the kingdom of heaven.

Nonconformity was presented as a matter of faith rather than of
legitimate
diversity in practice. The argument seemed compelling and the
decision
favoured Roman practice. Colman, who represented a dynamic Celtic
tradition
that had brought a vibrant faith to many parts of England and Europe,
rejected the decision and left Whitby in sorrow. He travelled via
Iona with
English and Celtic monks to Galway where he founded his monastery in a
stunningly beautiful spot near a sandy beach and small lake on
Inishboffin.
Celtic customs continued there and most notably in Wales, Iona and the
north
of Ireland for centuries. According to some authorities, conformity
was
only achieved in Ireland, if ever, after the arrival of the Normans in
the
12th century.

Colman's troubles continued on Inishbofin, where Irish monks are said
to
have spent warm summer days preaching on the Irish mainland while
English
monks were left with the humdrum of everyday monastic life on the
remote
island. This aroused discontent and Colman's solution was to found a
new
monastery in Mayo for his English monks.

Little remains of Colman's monastery on Inishbofin but ruins of a
medieval
church standing on the site with, apparently, a few 7th century
graves. But
little attempt is made to highlight the significance of Colman who can
be
seen as representing the demise of Celtic Christianity. People like
Colman
had given Ireland its reputation as a ‘land of saints and scholars'
and even
today people find inspiration in ancient Irish Christianity and seek
to
reproduce elements of the tradition in today's world.

However the Pascal controversy as it became known, left a scar
throughout
these islands for centuries even though Augustine's mission was a
relative
failure. Augustine's supporters may have been sophisticated and
learned
compared to the denigrated ‘rustic' Irish monks, but they lacked the
latter'
s courage and determination. One of their customs was to set out
without
oars in flimsy coracles relying only on God to guide them to a place
of
mission and/or pilgrimage taking the faith right across Europe and
beyond
during a dark age.

Augustine in contrast tried to enforce alien practices in the name of
orthodoxy but left a bitter legacy. Other attempts to enforce
religious or
political conformity down the centuries have left us a dubious
heritage but
one that is hopefully coming to an end. The Good Friday Agreement is
built
upon diversity and tries to establish new and free relationships
throughout
our islands. The days of imperialism and coercion are largely gone
and
today the hope is that differences will cease to be a source of
controversy
but rather a strength and dynamism that can free us from the slavery
of what
have been futile antagonisms and damaging conflicts.
Email: r...@irishnews.com

Ian: multiman@aros.net

unread,

Aug 18, 2004, 7:00:15 PM8/18/04

to

Why Susan I didnt know you loved us Orthodox so much, this is
wonderful news that not wantign to be a bigot you have come out for
the Orhtodox Baha'is. :-)

incumbent

unread,

Aug 18, 2004, 7:12:27 PM8/18/04

to

Ian: mult...@aros.net wrote:

> Why Susan I didnt know you loved us Orthodox so much, this is
> wonderful news that not wantign to be a bigot you have come out for
> the Orhtodox Baha'is. :-)

Okay - someone please cliff-notes the Orthodox Baha'is for me.

What I *think* the deal is, so far:

a) They don't believe that Shoghi Effendi was the last Guardian.
b) They eat babies.

Can someone please tell me what the basic fundementals are of the
Orthodox Baha'is and why they're Orthodox and "Baha'ifas" aren't "Orthodox"?

Mr. Bad Judgement

unread,

Aug 18, 2004, 9:32:23 PM8/18/04

to

incumbent wrote:

I guess you are new to the internet?

Some years ago - 1988? - the OBF of the USA took out ads in some major
papers addressed to the Heterodox Baha'is, asserting that they were
following every clause of the "Will and Testament" of 'Abdu'l Baha. As
a recent convert, I'd never heard of these Heterodox Baha'is who were
not following the "Will and Testament", but these Orthodox Baha'is were
also following a third Guardian, and I had not heard of that. Some
Anglican priest at my job asked about this, since he knew I was a
Baha'i, but what I knew of the "Will and Testament" was they had things
sideways and backwards.

In a nutshell, the Orthodox have decided that it is essential to simply
have a Guardian, and the process of the Hands providing some witness to
the selection of the Guardian's successor, is completely abrogated.
Somehow, the Baha'is must sort out for themeselves that Joel B.
Marangella, and not Donald Harvey, or Reginald King, is the real
appointee of Charles Mason Remey, who himself was not assented to by a
body of Hands, per the Will and Testament, as the successor of Shoghi
Effendi.

When Shoghi Effendi passed away, the Hands of the Cause of God, to
include C. Mason Remey, told the Baha'i community that Shoghi Effendi
had died and left no successor. So, the Orthodox believe that the first
public statement of Mason Remey to the Baha'i community after the
passing of Shoghi Effendi, was _wrong_, while the heterodox Baha'is
believe he was _right_ in 1957.

- Mr. Bad

incumbent

unread,

Aug 18, 2004, 9:30:49 PM8/18/04

to

Mr. Bad Judgement wrote:

>
>
> incumbent wrote:
>
>> Ian: mult...@aros.net wrote:
>>
>>> Why Susan I didnt know you loved us Orthodox so much, this is
>>> wonderful news that not wantign to be a bigot you have come out for
>>> the Orhtodox Baha'is. :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> Okay - someone please cliff-notes the Orthodox Baha'is for me.
>>
>> What I *think* the deal is, so far:
>>
>> a) They don't believe that Shoghi Effendi was the last Guardian.
>> b) They eat babies.
>>
>> Can someone please tell me what the basic fundementals are of the
>> Orthodox Baha'is and why they're Orthodox and "Baha'ifas" aren't
>> "Orthodox"?
>>
>
> I guess you are new to the internet?

No, I helped build it.

But that doesn't mean I know everything about the Baha'i Faith!

Robert Clifton

unread,

Aug 19, 2004, 1:28:59 PM8/19/04

to

Hello,

Cliff notes below:

> >> Okay - someone please cliff-notes the Orthodox Baha'is for me.
> >>
> >> What I *think* the deal is, so far:
> >>
> >> a) They don't believe that Shoghi Effendi was the last Guardian.
> >> b) They eat babies.
> >>
> >> Can someone please tell me what the basic fundementals are of the
> >> Orthodox Baha'is and why they're Orthodox and "Baha'ifas" aren't
> >> "Orthodox"?

It was the central figures who decided that there is to be a continous
living guardian. Shoghi Effendi made repeated reference to future
guardians.
The Orthodox Baha'is do not eat their (or anyone elses) babies. You
must have us confused with the group Shirin is in.
The basic fundamentals of the Orthodox Baha'is can be found on a
number of web pages such as the Guardians page, the Councils page, my
page, Ians page, and so on.
Orthodox was a name derived following a law suit in which the AO in
Chicago gained limited legal exclusive right to Baha'i. Sort of like
the Baptists gaining legal right to Christian. The distinction needed
made between baptist and catholic Ao and us.
Heterodox Baha'is in Africa (lawyers, judges, United Nations
dignitaries) recently decided to settle the question using standard
court room proceedure and found after two years of investigation that
there is indeed to be a guardian and further found that Joel
Marangella is that guardian. They have since contacted Joel with thier
acceptance of his guardianship.

News note: There has been a recent invasion of Africa by continental
councilors.

I hope this helps.

Orthodox Babi Bahai Bob

Robert Clifton

unread,

Aug 19, 2004, 1:46:43 PM8/19/04

to

Hello,

>Because your two Bahai's put up such a bad show you are all resentful
>and angry at dear old John who is carrying the true message for
>Christ.

What is the true message of Christ????
At last mention there were some two thousand different cults in
christianity carrying the 'true message of Christ'. Which of those
true messages is the true message?

Where in the Bible did Jesus or any of his disciples mention the
Baha'i Faith?
If one were to study genetics one would do well to pull their
literature from some time after Mendelsohn. Assuming that not everyone
will understand the analogy - if one were to study Baha'i one would do
well to pull their references from some time after the birth of the
Bab.

The Baha'is have been embarrassed on more than one occassion by
individual Baha'is who have put on a bad show. As far as I know none
of us have been to Baha'i Seminary College. We should prepare for
further embarrassment.

OBBB

kaweah

unread,

Aug 19, 2004, 1:49:26 PM8/19/04

to

incumbent <incu...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:<bpTUc.32393$Bb.22646@lakeread08>...

> Mr. Bad Judgement wrote:
> > I guess you are new to the internet?
>
> No, I helped build it.

Well then you must have worked with Remey! ... and Al Gore!

But seriously, as much as I'm inclined to support any underdog against
the Haughty Haifan Heterodoxy, it's silly to even try to argue the
Ortho case. Shoghi Effendi just did too good of a job of obliterating
the Guardianship (defined as the line of Guardians). I would agree
with any Baha'i arguing that the UHJ has got to be significantly "less
infallible" without the guidance of a Guardian, though I personally
believe that Shoghi was rightly guided to end the Guardianship. Better
to just kill the royals and keep it democratic.

God Bless Democracy! ;-)
-Kaw

Susan Maneck

unread,

Aug 19, 2004, 2:32:00 PM8/19/04

to

>I personally
>believe that Shoghi was rightly guided to end the Guardianship.

Rightly guided? Is there a part of you that still believes, Dan?

Cal E. Rollins

unread,

Aug 19, 2004, 5:04:01 PM8/19/04

to

Bad,

Wrong! I heard that the Orthodoxians had something to do with the
people who worked on your mouth, straightened out your teeth, and worked
with hoof and mouth disease. And they also worked on getting the kinks
out of your body parts. Never could figure what any of that had to do
with our religion. --Cal

kaweah

unread,

Aug 19, 2004, 7:30:08 PM8/19/04

to

Argghhh! Busted!

Everyone gets to be rightly guided on occasion, Susan!

I am not convinced, given his circumstances, that Shoghi Effendi did a
bad job as Guardian. I don't know the man within the Guardian (I don't
believe his wife did either), but he sure had some big shoes to fill
when he took the job. I can see why some considered him a tyrant (and
some still do, from the look of Fred's latest posts), and maybe he
*was* a tyrant, but my best guess is that he was doing his best, right
up until his "failure" to name a successor. Realizing how
intrinsically difficult his job was, and how it might just be harder
yet for someone without his knowledge of his grandfather, he must have
thought many times, "how am I going to find the next sucker for this
job?" :-)

If there's a part of me that's still a Baha'i, Susan, he (or she) is
bound, gagged, bruised, bleeding, and unconscious. Wish him (or her)
luck for me!

Grinning from ear to ear,
Dan

sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message news:<20040819143200...@mb-m21.aol.com>...

Susan Maneck

unread,

Aug 19, 2004, 8:08:22 PM8/19/04

to

>
>If there's a part of me that's still a Baha'i, Susan, he (or she) is
>bound, gagged, bruised, bleeding, and unconscious. Wish him (or her)
>luck for me!

Indeed, I do.

incumbent

unread,

Aug 19, 2004, 9:04:28 PM8/19/04

to

Robert Clifton wrote:

> The Orthodox Baha'is do not eat their (or anyone elses) babies. You
> must have us confused with the group Shirin is in.

I was, of course kidding about the baby eating.

Thank you for the quick insight.

Robert Clifton

unread,

Aug 19, 2004, 10:30:03 PM8/19/04

to

>it's silly to even try to argue the Ortho case.

Ah yes, it is indeed silly to argue the Ortho case for as Abdul Baha
said-
"Were it not for the protecting power of the Covenant to guard the
impregnable fort of the Cause of God, there would arise among the
Bahá'ís, in one day, a thousand different sects as was the case in
former ages. But in this Blessed Dispensation, for the sake of the
permanency of the Cause of God and the avoidance of dissension amongst
the people of God, the Blessed Beauty ..., has through the Supreme Pen
written the Covenant and the Testament; He appointed a Center, the
Exponent of the Book and the annuller of disputes. Whatever is written
or said by Him is conformable to the truth and under the protection of
the Blessed Beauty. He is infallible. The express purpose of this last
Will and Testament is to set aside disputes from the world."
(Baha'i World Faith p. 357)

>Shoghi Effendi just did too good of a job of obliterating
> the Guardianship

Or, as is more supportable he did too good a job in camoflauging it.
Silly people can't read well enough to ferret it out.

> Better to just kill the royals and keep it democratic.

But then it never was democratic, was it?
"I wish to affirm without the least hesitation or ambiguity, .... The
administrative order which lies embedded in the Teaching of
Bahá'u'lláh,... should, under no circumstances, be identified with the
principles underlying present-day democracies. Nor is it identical
with any purely aristocratic or autocratic form of government." Shoghi
Effendi, Extracts from the USBN)
My goodness then, what ever could it be? Perhaps something never
before seen on the face of the earth?

OBBB

TahirihStarr*

unread,

Aug 20, 2004, 3:06:25 AM8/20/04

to

cli...@eudoramail.com (Robert Clifton) wrote in message news:<e3f87f43.04081...@posting.google.com>...

> >it's silly to even try to argue the Ortho case.
> Ah yes, it is indeed silly to argue the Ortho case for as Abdul Baha
> said-
> "Were it not for the protecting power of the Covenant to guard the
> impregnable fort of the Cause of God,

The Cause of God/ess is the Eternal Covenant: Everyone is a Star! It
can no longer be monopolized - Thus I proclaimed the 'continuous flow
of revelation' back in 1844 and the Bab ratified this was the eternal
truth for the new Dispensation and Cycle dawning.

TahirihStarr*

kaweah

unread,

Aug 20, 2004, 10:37:40 AM8/20/04

to

cli...@eudoramail.com (Robert Clifton) wrote in message news:<e3f87f43.04081...@posting.google.com>...

> >Shoghi Effendi just did too good of a job of obliterating
> > the Guardianship
> Or, as is more supportable he did too good a job in camoflauging it.
> Silly people can't read well enough to ferret it out.

Yes, and I am one of those silly people.
You are one of the illuminati that follow a grand rationalization.

> > Better to just kill the royals and keep it democratic.
> But then it never was democratic, was it?

No, I didn't mean to say that the Baha'i Faith was intended to be
wholly democratic. I know enough about the Baha'i Faith to know better
than that. I am simply suggesting that Shoghi gave you a chance to
choose congregational religion as "the People of Baha" when he
abandoned the Guardianship, and you almost did it. If you granted the
UHJ a bit less power, you would have had a living religion rather than
a dead letter.

> My goodness then, what ever could it be? Perhaps something never
> before seen on the face of the earth?
>
> OBBB

No, it's just a collection of old ideas, really.

Ciao,
Dan

Susan Maneck

unread,

Aug 20, 2004, 11:38:00 AM8/20/04

to

>
>Yes, and I am one of those silly people.

Apparently Mason Remey was too, because he didn't start insisting he was the
Guardian until the Hands decided that the IBC was to become an elected body
rather than an appointed one, which meant Remey would have to step down from
that body. But initially he was assigning documents like the following:

"The Custodians shall be deemed to succeed the Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith,
His Eminence the late Shoghi Effendi Rabbani, in Palestine or Israel Branches
of National Spiritual Assemblies of various countries, which are registered in
Israel, and the Custodians may nominate one or more persons to act on their
behalf in any such Israel Branches."

If indeed Mason Remey had been appointed Guardian, in signing this document he
was essentially giving over his successorship to the Custodians! Certainly a
much better legal case can be made for that than Joel M. being Guardian because
Mason Remey made him president of his own IBC!

> I am simply suggesting that Shoghi gave you a chance to
>choose congregational religion as "the People of Baha" when he
>abandoned the Guardianship, and you almost did it.

I don't think Shoghi Effendi ever intended to bring the Guardianship to an end,
Dan. He just didn't have any possible successors under the terms of the Will
and Testament. I think he was still hoping for an heir right up until his
untimely death.

>If you granted the
>UHJ a bit less power, you would have had a living religion rather than
>a dead letter.

It wasn't us who gave them the power, Dan. Their powers were already outlined
in the Aqdas, the W&T and the World Order letters.

warmest, Susan

Hess

unread,

Aug 20, 2004, 1:02:09 PM8/20/04

to

"kaweah" <dje...@kaweah.com> wrote in message
news:fe72f2b1.0408...@posting.google.com...

> cli...@eudoramail.com (Robert Clifton) wrote in message
news:<e3f87f43.04081...@posting.google.com>...

> If you granted the

> UHJ a bit less power, you would have had a living religion rather than
> a dead letter.

Hey Kiwi, we did not grant UHJ any power, it was Bahaullah who had it
conferred and Abdulbaha who made it clear in His Will & Testament that that
is not peoples plan but the unfolding of Devine will.
As the dead letters you referred to the faith, I should say: that only
dependant on who the examiner of life is. perhaps an ant never would fine a
field of wheat living, just gets the grain and goes about its way. For your
kind of living religions, you find millions of them scattered all across the
globe. I suppose each individual comes up with no principles, but sets of
beliefs, that are subjected to constant revision, therefore call it living.
I call that 10:00 O'clock news.

Hess

Randy Burns

unread,

Aug 20, 2004, 2:45:20 PM8/20/04

to

"Susan Maneck " <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040820113800...@mb-m05.aol.com...

> >
>
> It wasn't us who gave them the power, Dan. Their powers were already
outlined
> in the Aqdas, the W&T and the World Order letters.

Perhaps Dan's point is that the amount of power over lives that Baha'is
grant to the Institutions might not gibe exactly with what is given them in
the Holy Books. It is one thing to grant them their due, quite another to
give them more than that.

Cheers, Randy

Robert Clifton

unread,

Aug 20, 2004, 2:50:45 PM8/20/04

to

>a grand rationalization.
On this point I will have to say that I do indeed do a large amount of
rationalization concerning the concept of a God. There is no proof of
any scientific merit which allows the existence of God, ergo all
accounts are rationalizations.
More specifically the word was applied to the concept of a continuing
guardianship.
A group of Baha'is in Africa recently subjected the concept of a
continuing guardianship to a rigorous two year "trial" by lawyers and
judges which included a united nations dignitary. Their intent being
to find the rational with out rationalizing. The finding of that court
was that Joel Marangella is the rightful claimant to the guardianship
of the Baha'i Faith.
Rationalization is not needed in the presence of overwhelming
evidence.

> Shoghi gave you a chance to choose congregational religion as "the People of Baha" when he abandoned the Guardianship,

Faulty premise one supporting faulty premise two does not produce a
truthful conclusion.
One: It was the hands of the cause who presented the chance at
something different.
Two: Shoghi had not abandoned the guardianship by any word deed or act
but on the contrary produced many words, deeds and actions to
perpetuate it.
The conclusion that having a congregational religion would be somehow
superior needs much more support than has been presented.

> granted the UHJ a bit less power, you would have had a living religion
> rather than a dead letter.

Granting the UHJ absolutely NO power would be in keeping with the
directives of the Manifestation and the design of the Baha'i Faith.

> No, it's just a collection of old ideas, really.

Some of the ideas are not only old but by any measure ancient.
The idea of free will wells from the garden of eden.
The idea of self determination roots way back.
The idea of government serving the people has been addressed in many
places.
But never has a grass roots democracy put the severly limited power of
religious observation at the local level and restricted the "upper
echelons" to advise alone.
(All Baha'i levels have no power but full authority)
Never before has a religion been so adamantly opposed to a merger of
state and religion.
So we agree in the statement "It's just a collection of old ideas" but
we must add 'infused with a few new concepts overseen by a brand new
methodology'.

Robert Clifton

unread,

Aug 20, 2004, 2:58:06 PM8/20/04

to

> The Cause of God/ess is the Eternal Covenant: Everyone is a Star! It
> can no longer be monopolized - Thus I proclaimed the 'continuous flow
> of revelation' back in 1844 and the Bab ratified this was the eternal
> truth for the new Dispensation and Cycle dawning.

Your proclamation is beset by a continous flow of skeptics. Sorry
about that.
Working together maybe we can eleminate some of the confusion?

Actually You 'proclaimed the continuous flow' at the beginning of time
but did a better job of explaining it after 1844. My father didn't
show signs of senile memory lapses until after he turned ninety. How
old are You?

OBBB

Dermod Ryder

unread,

Aug 20, 2004, 4:43:28 PM8/20/04

to

"Robert Clifton" <cli...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:e3f87f43.04082...@posting.google.com...

> >a grand rationalization.
> On this point I will have to say that I do indeed do a large amount of
> rationalization concerning the concept of a God. There is no proof of
> any scientific merit which allows the existence of God, ergo all
> accounts are rationalizations.
> More specifically the word was applied to the concept of a continuing
> guardianship.
> A group of Baha'is in Africa recently subjected the concept of a
> continuing guardianship to a rigorous two year "trial" by lawyers and
> judges which included a united nations dignitary. Their intent being
> to find the rational with out rationalizing. The finding of that court
> was that Joel Marangella is the rightful claimant to the guardianship
> of the Baha'i Faith.

How was the Court composed? Are any of the papers extant - skeleton
arguments etc? Is there a written judgement as to how this decision was
arrived at?

Dermod Ryder

unread,

Aug 20, 2004, 5:26:15 PM8/20/04

to

"Susan Maneck " <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040820113800...@mb-m05.aol.com...
> >

> >Yes, and I am one of those silly people.
>
> Apparently Mason Remey was too, because he didn't start insisting he was
the
> Guardian until the Hands decided that the IBC was to become an elected
body
> rather than an appointed one, which meant Remey would have to step down
from
> that body.

Remey was only one of the rest who would have had to stand down as well.

> But initially he was assigning documents like the following:
>
> "The Custodians shall be deemed to succeed the Guardian of the Bahá'í
Faith,
> His Eminence the late Shoghi Effendi Rabbani, in Palestine or Israel
Branches
> of National Spiritual Assemblies of various countries, which are
registered in
> Israel, and the Custodians may nominate one or more persons to act on
their
> behalf in any such Israel Branches."
>
> If indeed Mason Remey had been appointed Guardian, in signing this
document he
> was essentially giving over his successorship to the Custodians! Certainly
a
> much better legal case can be made for that than Joel M. being Guardian
because
> Mason Remey made him president of his own IBC!

Now now, Susie! Stay away from the legal arguments - they always land you
in trouble! A substantive legal case can be advanced that the UHJ is an
illegal assembly of Grumpies laying fraudulent claim to a title and powers
they have no legitimate claim to.

> > I am simply suggesting that Shoghi gave you a chance to
> >choose congregational religion as "the People of Baha" when he
> >abandoned the Guardianship, and you almost did it.
>
> I don't think Shoghi Effendi ever intended to bring the Guardianship to an
end,
> Dan. He just didn't have any possible successors under the terms of the
Will
> and Testament.

Because he had alienated just about everybody in the family. It is a
tribute to the man that he managed to do that.

> I think he was still hoping for an heir right up until his
> untimely death.

Now that's what I call optimism. Unfortunately he did nothing to cover the
eventuality that an heir could not be produced.

> >If you granted the
> >UHJ a bit less power, you would have had a living religion rather than
> >a dead letter.
>
> It wasn't us who gave them the power, Dan. Their powers were already
outlined
> in the Aqdas, the W&T and the World Order letters.

Indeed but weren't they all predicated on the final instruction that the
composition of the House, not touched upon prior to the W&T, included as its
Head and member for life, a living .. em! er! Guardian of the bloodline!

kaweah

unread,

Aug 20, 2004, 8:23:38 PM8/20/04

to

"Hess" <nomail...@deal.com> wrote in message news:<l8qVc.29929$nx2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...

> "kaweah" <dje...@kaweah.com> wrote in message
> news:fe72f2b1.0408...@posting.google.com...
> > cli...@eudoramail.com (Robert Clifton) wrote in message
> news:<e3f87f43.04081...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > If you granted the
> > UHJ a bit less power, you would have had a living religion rather than
> > a dead letter.
>
> Hey Kiwi, we did not grant UHJ any power, it was Bahaullah who had it
> conferred and Abdulbaha who made it clear in His Will & Testament that that
> is not peoples plan but the unfolding of Devine will.

Yeah, that's your magical "Covenant". Magic is magic. The Pope rules
because of that same magic, and so have the kings of the distant past.
Give me explicit, detailed provisions that are not contradicted
elsewhere in your scripture. Where are the details for a UHJ with and
without a Guardian laid out clearly in one place? I've heard a lot
about implications, but I haven't seen anything that resembles a
binding constitution.

> For your
> kind of living religions, you find millions of them scattered all across the
> globe. I suppose each individual comes up with no principles, but sets of
> beliefs, that are subjected to constant revision, therefore call it living.
> I call that 10:00 O'clock news.

Hessy, I call that the relativity of religious truth. I have no
problem with a plurality of religious experiences. I happen to believe
the human soul has a great deal of universality within it, but
diversity does not disturb me. You, as a Baha'i, have no such faith.
If you think every soul harbors nothing but groundless, varying,
drifting whims, how are you ever going to get people to agree on your
static, "universal" (read "absolute") truth?

Yours truly,
Kiwi

kaweah

unread,

Aug 20, 2004, 11:25:58 PM8/20/04

to

sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message news:<20040820113800...@mb-m05.aol.com>...

> >
> >Yes, and I am one of those silly people.
>
> Apparently Mason Remey was too,

I've no doubt of that, Susan. In my opinion, his silliness detracts
from the important issues regarding the Baha'i Covenant. He served the
UHJ well with his silliness!

> > I am simply suggesting that Shoghi gave you a chance to
> >choose congregational religion as "the People of Baha" when he
> >abandoned the Guardianship, and you almost did it.
>
> I don't think Shoghi Effendi ever intended to bring the Guardianship to an end,
> Dan. He just didn't have any possible successors under the terms of the Will
> and Testament.

And he had nothing to do with the development of that situation?
Excommunicating people for associating with their closest family
members? I'm not saying any of them could have been a decent guardian,
but wow, talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water!

> I think he was still hoping for an heir right up until his
> untimely death.

Hoping? Is that what he wrote in his will and testament?

His death wouldn't have been so untimely if he hadn't laid down some
standard operaating procedures.

Perhaps he ought to have left the Baha'i world a little specific
guidance in that regard, so they wouldn't have to go hunting through
their untranslated scripture for shades of implication.

He didn't just violate the law of Baha'u'llah; he violated a
fundamental principle of leadership.

Maybe that was the only move he had left.

> >If you granted the
> >UHJ a bit less power, you would have had a living religion rather than
> >a dead letter.
>
> It wasn't us who gave them the power, Dan. Their powers were already outlined
> in the Aqdas, the W&T and the World Order letters.

The people of Baha had a lot of thinking to do, didn't they? It was
ultimately your choice, and it continues to be your choice. Do you
continue to toss out dissidents in the name of unity?, or allow people
to harbor dangerous opinions within the fold? Ah, but you must obey
the UHJ. What a shame. You could elect more liberal administrators,
but the UHJ has taken upon itself to excommunicate liberals. What a
fix you're in.

Specifically, in what document, and where in that document, are the
powers of the UHJ specified, both with and without a guardian at its
head? I am not at all convinced that the UHJ can operate indefinitely
without a guardian, assuming--in practical terms--all the powers of
the guardianship.

Yes, Abdu'l-Baha may have conceived of a time when Shoghi would not
have been old enough to do his job, and so some interim leadership
would be needed, but that does not necessarily entitle the UHJ to
operate indefinitely without a guardian and without restrictions.
Perhaps that is why Shoghi Effendi kept quiet about the whole mess. He
knew he was painted into a corner.

I've followed all this hair splitting back and forth between Baha'i
factions, and I am not impressed. Someone ought to have hired a lawyer
and put it all down in writing. All you've got left is your magic of
conferred infallibility. Anybody can promise divine confirmations.
What you need--and what you claim to have--is something like a
constitution, but what you have is student government 101.

Sincerely,
Dan

kaweah

unread,

Aug 21, 2004, 4:01:18 AM8/21/04

to

Randy, I wonder what about the following passage indicates that the
House of Justice ought to play the role of thought police:

"All matters of State should be referred to the House of Justice, but
acts of worship must be observed according to that which God hath
revealed in His Book." -- 8th Ishraq

Is a person's status as a Baha'i a matter of State, or is it a
spiritual matter? Mind you, a person's ability to worship as a member
of a spiritual community is impacted here. Picture a world that is
predominantly Baha'i: what would the Baha'i community do with the
village whacko then? Cast him out and shun him? Should the UHJ be
separating the wheat from the chaff, or ought they to leave that job
to God?

Regards,
Dan

"Randy Burns" <randy....@gte.net> wrote in message news:<4FrVc.784$dB6...@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...

Susan Maneck

unread,

Aug 21, 2004, 4:22:13 AM8/21/04

to

>A substantive legal case can be advanced that the UHJ is an
>illegal assembly of Grumpies laying fraudulent claim to a title and powers
>they have no legitimate claim to.

By whom? Those guys in Africa?

>Because he had alienated just about everybody in the family. It is a
>tribute to the man that he managed to do that.

He didn't alienate them, they betrayed him.

>Unfortunately he did nothing to cover the
>eventuality that an heir could not be produced.

At 57 he had no reason to think he would die soon. Abdu'l-Baha wrote His W&T
when He thought He was about to be executed.

>
>Indeed but weren't they all predicated on the final instruction that the
>composition of the House, not touched upon prior to the W&T,

No. Baha'u'llah anticipated that His line could come to an end prior to the
formation of the House of Justice and He gave instructions as to what should
happen in that eventuality.

Susan Maneck

unread,

Aug 21, 2004, 5:38:02 AM8/21/04

to

>Excommunicating people for associating with their closest family
>members?

Not excommunicating those who were associating with Covenant breakers was not
an option. Had he allowed his family members to do so, he could not have hoped
to prevent anyone else.

>I'm not saying any of them could have been a decent guardian,
>but wow, talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water!

More like flushing something down with the toilet water.

>
>Hoping? Is that what he wrote in his will and testament?

People who don't think they are dying anytime soon usually don't write wills.
But we know from pilgrim's notes that he was still anticipating more Guardians
up until the last year of his life.

>It was
>ultimately your choice, and it continues to be your choice.

Yes, one can choose to follow divine revelation or ignore it.

>Do you
>continue to toss out dissidents in the name of unity?, or allow people
>to harbor dangerous opinions within the fold?

They can harbor as many dangerous opinions as they like. What they can't do is
"raise the standard of revolt, wax stubborn and open wide the door of false
interpretation."

>Specifically, in what document, and where in that document, are the
>powers of the UHJ specified, both with and without a guardian at its
>head?

The Kitab-i Aqdas
Ishraqat
The Will and Testament
Lawh-i-Bayt-ul-‘Adl-‘Azam va Úsúl-i-Qadá’í
http://bahai-library.com/provisionals/bayt.adl.usul.qadai.au.html

>
>Yes, Abdu'l-Baha may have conceived of a time when Shoghi would not
>have been old enough to do his job, and so some interim leadership
>would be needed, but that does not necessarily entitle the UHJ to
>operate indefinitely without a guardian

Baha'u'llah conceived of a time when His line would run out even before the
House was elected. He didn't modify anything He said about the House on that
account.

>What you need--and what you claim to have--is something like a
>constitution,

Uh Dan, we have a constitution.
http://bahai-library.com/published.uhj/constitution.html

Susan Maneck

unread,

Aug 21, 2004, 5:42:02 AM8/21/04

to

>
>Randy, I wonder what about the following passage indicates that the
>House of Justice ought to play the role of thought police:
>

"the institutions do not busy themselves with what individual believers think
unless those thoughts become expressed in actions which are inimical to the
basic principles and vital interests of the Faith.
"http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/House_letter_academic_methodologies.html

Michael McKenny

unread,

Aug 21, 2004, 8:23:11 AM8/21/04

to

Hi, Susan.

Susan Maneck (sma...@aol.com) writes:
> Not excommunicating those who were associating with Covenant breakers was not
> an option.

I was chatting with someone last night and had the opportunity to agree
with a point that specifically has nothing to do with this, though in
general it's very relevant. The point was specifically drawn from the
Koran, but in general it's that an argument that seeks to excuse wrong on
the grounds of there being no option is invalid. There is always an option
to do good, and nothing is a legitimate justification to choose to do the
worse of the possibilities before one.
Of course, there constantly remains an option for the Baha'is to choose
to do good, to follow the advice of their Prophet to associate with the
followers of all religions, including other Baha'is, in a spirit of
fellowship, amiety and harmony.
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael

--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)

In this new era of independent investigation,(read: not relying upon
the pronouncements of others,(read: do your own thinking) Shoghi did
what Shoghi ought to have done. It is silly to second guess in lieu of
investigating.

> > Their powers were already outlined
> > in the Aqdas, the W&T and the World Order letters.

Ah the ways we develop understanding. There is no power in the UHJ,
only authority. Government derives its power from the people and
people have acquiesed to a presumed leader in a leaderless religion.

> Ah, but you must obey
> the UHJ. What a shame.

A shame indeed if you read obedience as the UHJ having power to
interfere in a personal life action.
Not a shame at all if you read obedience as the UHJ having the
authority to make pronouncements as a mouthpiece for God.
Otherwise the UHJ is an innocuous contraption designed for the care
and maintenance of those things of the Faith which are beyond the
capacity of the Local House of Justice.

> but the UHJ has taken upon itself to excommunicate liberals. What a
> fix you're in.

The UHJ has taken upon itself too much and has risen above its
station.

>
> Specifically, in what document, and where in that document, are the
> powers of the UHJ specified,

Many documents, many places and a fairly simple search will turn them
up.

But NEVER >without a guardian at its
> head?

> all this hair splitting back and forth between Baha'i
> factions, and I am not impressed.

Nor was Abdul Baha who said such is an exercise in folly.

> Someone ought to have hired a lawyer
> and put it all down in writing.

And then sentence God to jail time, or sue Him for breach of contract.
A lawyer is for silly people.

> All you've got left is your magic of
> conferred infallibility.

Magic indeed as understood by so many in the majority. Infallibility =
God said thus and thus. God said Baha'u'lah speaks for Me. Baha'u'llah
said the Guardian explains what I said and the UHJ speaks on subjects
I have not addressed. That is conferred infallability and has nothing
to do with right, wrong, good, bad, at all. It is, for those
lawyeristic among us, a power of attorney.

> Anybody can promise divine confirmations.

and many have.

> What you need--and what you claim to have--is something like a
> constitution, but what you have is student government 101.

What we need is independent investigation of the writings we have.
We have what we need, we merely have yet to study it and consult upon
it.

Sans acrimony.

Michael McKenny

unread,

Aug 21, 2004, 9:35:32 AM8/21/04

to

Hi, Dermod and Susan.

Susan Maneck (sma...@aol.com) writes:
>>A substantive legal case can be advanced that the UHJ is an
>>illegal assembly of Grumpies laying fraudulent claim to a title and powers
>>they have no legitimate claim to.

Actually, I think it's not untimely to begin to be a bit more accurate
in our terminology. For the past score of years or so there hasn't been
a membership fulfilling the minimal requirements of the designation that has
been misappropriated by the guys currently claiming a title. I suggest that
they be called what they are the acting members of the Universal House of
Justice.
The point made above is valid. Inasmuch as the acting members of the
Universal House of Justice hold power simply because they have abrogated
unjustly, invalidly and contrary to the strict prohibition of Baha'i
scripture, the most essential requirements of office, inasmuch as they
have invalidly forbidden any female name from being placed on the ballot,
invalidly erected a system of dogmatic belief, invalidly interpreted
Sacred Text, invalidly erased the universality of the Baha'i World Faith,
invalidly defined believers to be outside the Baha'i World Faith,
invalidly fostered sectarianism, intolerance, animosity and religious
fundamentalism, the aforementioned acting members of the Universal House
of Justice do not possess any legitimate claim to the offices they assert
to be theirs.
I have already called for real, sincere and effective spiritual
measures to enable them to correct the mess their incompetent leadership,
consistent only with the maintenance of their personal ambition, has
inflicted upon the body of Baha'i believers and upon the state of the
human species. I invite them, if they wish, to join me. Let them pray
ardently, sincerely and with absolute humility that they be inspired by the
Concourse on High, by Baha'u'llah, by the Ever Forgiving, the Most
Compassionate, and as well, that every individual on the planet,
especially the followers of the Blessed Beauty, be inspired to behave in
an elevated, in a spiritual and in a harmonious manner.
The opportunity, the choice, the option is wide open before them to
listen to the clear voice of human harmony and to find the specific means,
among a wide variety of possibilities, to demonstrate to the eyes of the
world that they are more than ambitious, though relatively inept,
personalities and that there really is contained within the ocean of
Baha'u'llah's revelation the capacity to heal the divisions afflicting
humanity.
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael

Susan Maneck

unread,

Aug 21, 2004, 10:34:33 AM8/21/04

to

>For the past score of years or so there hasn't been
>a membership fulfilling the minimal requirements of the designation that has
>been misappropriated by the guys currently claiming a title

Michael,

The only minimal requirement is that they be males in good standing elected by
the NSAs!

>imply because they have abrogated
>unjustly, invalidly and contrary to the strict prohibition of Baha'i
>scripture

Is this supposed to make some sense?

>they
>have invalidly forbidden any female name from being placed on the ballot,

They hardly came up with that on their own. As you know that was the
authoritative interpretation of the Aqdas given by both Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi
Effendi. They would have been exceeding their authority and thus mutiliating
the Cause if they had ignored that interpretation or reinterpreted it to allow
women to serve.

In any case, this issue has nothing to with their legitimacy.

Susan

Susan Maneck

unread,

Aug 21, 2004, 10:37:22 AM8/21/04

to

>
> Since shunning is a medieval measure that is incompatible with the
>assertion by those pretending to the name of Baha'i leaders that they are
>advocates, proponents and believers of the universality of humanity, the
>better choice is to leave shunning in the past.

Well then, I guess you'll just have to consider Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha
medieval. Again, all the things you are objecting to which the House or the
Guardian have done are things which were established by Baha'u'llah and
Abdu'l-Baha, not them.

Susan Maneck

unread,

Aug 21, 2004, 10:39:06 AM8/21/04

to

> Of course, there constantly remains an option for the Baha'is to choose
>to do good, to follow the advice of their Prophet to associate with the
>followers of all religions, including other Baha'is, in a spirit of
>fellowship,

It was Baha'u'llah Himself who established the proceedure of shunning Covenant
breakers which He first applied to the Azalis.

Susan Maneck

unread,

Aug 21, 2004, 10:40:20 AM8/21/04

to

>Actually, Susan is well aware that the Most Holy Book of Baha'i very
>strongly urges the believers to write wills,

So was Abdu'l-Baha. You know what? He didn't write one until He thought He was
about to be executed.

http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/

Susan Maneck

unread,

Aug 21, 2004, 10:43:15 AM8/21/04

to

>
>Correction: "if he *had* laid down some standard operaating procedures."

'Fraid that wouldn't have stopped him from dying in his prime. Aspirin would
have helped more. Stopped the blood from clotting.

Robert Clifton

unread,

Aug 21, 2004, 10:52:39 AM8/21/04

to

> By whom? Those guys in Africa?

From what I hear they did a masterful job of it.

> No. Baha'u'llah anticipated that His line could come to an end prior to the
> formation of the House of Justice and He gave instructions as to what should
> happen in that eventuality.

His instructions were to turn to Abdul Baha' who said in the Will and
Testament to choose another branch

Michael McKenny

unread,

Aug 21, 2004, 6:58:58 PM8/21/04

to

Dearest Susan.

Susan Maneck (sma...@aol.com) writes:
>>For the past score of years or so there hasn't been
>>a membership fulfilling the minimal requirements of the designation that has
>>been misappropriated by the guys currently claiming a title
>
> Michael,
>
> The only minimal requirement is that they be males in good standing elected by
> the NSAs!

This is not the minimum requirement for holding office as a real member
of the Universal House of Justice. I have said even before July 1997 that
this restricted literalism would not be accepted. There are minimum
standards and not only are they more elevated than this one you mention,
the one you mention is an indication that one is not meeting the standard.

> >simply because they have abrogated

>>unjustly, invalidly and contrary to the strict prohibition of Baha'i
>>scripture
>
> Is this supposed to make some sense?

I added the s at the very beginning; logical sense it makes, and, alas,
it does communicate historical events within Baha'i.

>>they
>>have invalidly forbidden any female name from being placed on the ballot,
>
> They hardly came up with that on their own.

I am so sorry to say that indeed they have initiated on their own the
discrimination against women that has reversed the example of the Perfect
Exemplar and of the Precious Pearl and contrary to the practise of Baha'i
in the early 20th Century, what was afflicted upon Baha'i in the late 20th
Century into this 21st Century is that uniquely under the power of the male
acting members of the Universal House of Justice Baha'is are no longer
demonstrating compliance with the scriptural text commanding that women be
accorded full equality in professional service and indeed connecting this
full equality of women and men with the achievement by humanity of world
peace.

> As you know that was the
> authoritative interpretation of the Aqdas

The interpretation of the words of Shoghi Effendi is interpretation.
Living a life that mirrors the example of the Perfect Exemplar and doing
what Shoghi Effendi did in seeing to it that the principle of the equality
of women and men was upheld, where safety permitted, would have attracted
the blessings of the Abha realm, the collective energy of the body of the
believers and the attention of humanity. Interpreting Shoghi Effendi so as
to discriminate against women, etc. has reaped the harvest quite visible,
evident and clear to anyone looking with open eyes. At any instant those
acting members of the Universal House of Justice have complete freedom to
cease interpreting Shighi Effendi and begin living the Baha'i life as both
Shoghi Effendi and Abdu'l Baha, to say nothing of the Prophet himself,
provided the effective spiritual example.

>given by both Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi
> Effendi. They would have been exceeding their authority

By interpreting Shoghi Effendi they have exceeded their authority, by
the numerous innovations (only in a Baha'i context; said innovations being
merely the application of traditional religious fundamentalism and
sectarian powerplays consistent with personal ambition to a Baha'i
context) they have inflicted upon Baha'i they have exceeded their authority.

> and thus mutiliating
> the Cause

By interpreting Shoghi Effendi they have mutilated the Cause, by their
numerous fundamentalist applications contrary to Baha'u'llah's prohibitions
against such they have mutilated the Cause.

> if they had ignored that interpretation

The interpretation of Shoghi Effendi is an interpretation, something
prohibited to any legitimate members of the Universal House of Justice.
Following the example of Abdu'l Baha and living a life demonstrating the
full equality of women would not be interpreting; it would be living the
life.

> or reinterpreted

If the word reinterpreted means obtaining an opposite result to what is
commanded in the Sacred Text for this age, then according to your meaning
the acting members of the Universal House of Justice have reinterpreted
Shoghi Effendi and Abdu'l Baha in order to obtain an opposite meaning to
the clear example both the Perfect Exemplar and the Precious Pearl
conveyed in their living the life of the equality of women and men, an
essential (that is to say defining) feature of the Baha'i Faith and of
anyone legitimately occupying a seat on the Universal House of Justice.

>it to allow
> women to serve.
>
> In any case, this issue has nothing to with their legitimacy.

As clearly shown above this has everything to do with legitimacy.
The legal case of the acting members of the Universal House of Justice
(I have been very polite here; other designations such as usurpers would
not be inaccurate) is that simply because they have acquired power that
such an acquisition of power not only may be defined as legitimate, but
permit the power wielders (again some such designation as usurpers would
not be inaccurate) to define the entity over which they hold power as that
collectivity rendering unquestioned obedience to the men in charge.
It will be evident to any legal mind that such an argument is not as
unanswerable as the acting members of the Universal House of Justice may
wish to spin. Quite clearly if American Medical Profession or the National
Football League or the University of Oxford were asserted by some guys who
had taken over control of such organizations as being defined solely as
that collectivity of individuals rendering allegiance to the guys in
charge, there is an evident case to be made that actually healing,
educating and moving a ball around a field also come into consideration as
to the essence of the entity being discussed. And, the very act of
attempting to disassociate such an entity from its essence calls very much
into question the legitimacy of the guys trying to do such disassociation.
If there is a very legitimate case to be made for the illigitmacy of
any such acting administrators in the health, academic and sports fields,
in my opinion, at least an equally strong case can be made for legal
dispossession of acting Baha'i administrators of any and all goods, monies
and properties they have misappropriated through their usurpation of power
within Baha'i, said properties, goods and monies being legitimately under
the rightful ownership of administrators that will be Baha'is, as
essentially evident in the spiritual qualifications, characteristics and
attributes clearly discernible in the Revelation of Baha'u'llah.
As I continually say, at any instant those acting members of the
Universal House of Justice may select, choose and decide to behave as real
members of the Universal House of Justice. I look forward to such a choice
and I have again noted here that there are many options, including the
more widespread recognition that the acting members have no legitimate
right to Baha'i property, goods and monies.
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael

>
> Susan

Michael McKenny

unread,

Aug 21, 2004, 7:18:00 PM8/21/04

to

Hi, Susan.

Susan Maneck (sma...@aol.com) writes:
>>
>> Since shunning is a medieval measure that is incompatible with the
>>assertion by those pretending to the name of Baha'i leaders that they are
>>advocates, proponents and believers of the universality of humanity, the
>>better choice is to leave shunning in the past.
>
> Well then, I guess you'll just have to consider Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha
> medieval. Again, all the things you are objecting to which the House or the
> Guardian have done are things which were established by Baha'u'llah and
> Abdu'l-Baha, not them.
>

The greatest Baha'i scholar was born in 1844, the very year of the
Declaration of the Bab, taken by Baha'is as the year one on their new era.
Yet, this greatest scholar studied Ptolemaic, rather than more modern,
astronomy. The teaching of Baha'u'llah is that even within the period of a
religious dispensation, understood by Baha'is to be periods of roughly a
thousand years, things change. One of the commandments of Baha'u'llah is
to be concerned with the requirements of the generation in which one is
living, to work for what will benefit the people of that time and to
understand that what was appropriate for the people of an age in which the
believers travelled on the backs of mules does not automatically apply to
a generation in which communication globally is instantaneous.
The real members of the Universal House of Justice are forbidden from
interpreting and interpreting Shoghi Effendi is interpreting. Each
believer is allowed to think and to share the fruit of such thinking, to
feel and to share the harvest of such heartfelt feeling, to pray and to
waft the fragrances of such prayer, on the condition that each accepts the
equal right of others to do the same.
The real members of the Universal House of Justice are empowered to
legislate according to the spiritual essence of the Revelation. Theirs is
the duty to demonstrate what will, in this generation, comply with the
spirit of Baha'i, meet the needs of humanity and create harmony within
Baha'i and among all those gifted with life in this generation.
At any time the acting members of the Universal House of Justice may
choose to cease interpreting Shoghi Effendi, decide to inhabit this
present generation, as they have been commanded by Baha'u'llah, and live a
life manifestly illumined with the essence of the Baha'i Faith.
I look forward to that.

Michael McKenny

unread,

Aug 21, 2004, 7:27:45 PM8/21/04

to

Hi, Susan.

Susan Maneck (sma...@aol.com) writes:
>> Of course, there constantly remains an option for the Baha'is to choose
>>to do good, to follow the advice of their Prophet to associate with the
>>followers of all religions, including other Baha'is, in a spirit of
>>fellowship,
>
> It was Baha'u'llah Himself who established the proceedure of shunning Covenant
> breakers which He first applied to the Azalis.
>

It was Baha'u'llah himself who commanded his followers to be concerned
with the generation they are inhabiting, who ordered his believers to
escape the snares of literalist fundamentalism and by spiritual
association with the followers of all religions to play a significant role
in the spiritualizing of the human species. It was argued that those
depending on the transportation by mule and camel and deprived of access
to information from the Centre of the Faith required preservation from the
usurpatious endeavours of the ambitious. This can be debated historically.
What is clear, however, is that the conditions used to justify such
measures in previous generations do not apply in this age of instantaneous
communication, within which frankly standard political analysis strongly
suggests the usurpatious endeavours of the ambitious are most evident in
the fundamentalist gamesmanship of the acting members of the Universal
House of Justice. At any time they may choose to live spiritually as
dwellers of this current generation evidently influenced by the spirit of

the Revelation of Baha'u'llah.

Michael McKenny

unread,

Aug 21, 2004, 7:40:42 PM8/21/04

to

Hi, Susan.

Susan Maneck (sma...@aol.com) writes:
>>Actually, Susan is well aware that the Most Holy Book of Baha'i very
>>strongly urges the believers to write wills,
>
> So was Abdu'l-Baha. You know what? He didn't write one until He thought He was
> about to be executed.
>

Shoghi Effendi was of course not of the same quality as Abdu'l Baha.
It is rather a lack of insight, foresight and attention to detail to
expect that one need not write a will unless and until one is faced with
the threat of execution by Ottoman officials. As Shoghi Effendi assumed
leadership after the end of the Ottoman Empire, it would be as lacking in
wisdom to await such an impending execution as it would be to imagine a
plump fellow of sixty years is a youth. Frankly, even youthful fellows
have been known to take up lodgings in cemeteries, so, in my opinion, it
is erroneous to insist that Shoghi Effendi did not write a will on the
grounds that he felt he would be writing one at a future date. It is, of
course, a possibility, but it is far more likely that if there was no
will, then he chose not to write a will, he decided not to write a will
and he selected the option of not writing a will.
His reasoning can be discussed, but an attempt to pretend that the
Baha'i Faith has no options because he chose the option of not writing a
will violates a general principle of human responsibility, that nothing at
all can remove one's capacity, ability and opportunity to make spiritual
choices.

Susan Maneck

unread,

Aug 21, 2004, 9:31:17 PM8/21/04

to

>The real members of the Universal House of Justice are forbidden from
>interpreting

They do not interpret the Sacred Text. Shoghi Effendi did that. There is
nothing which forbids the House from interpreting anything else.

Susan Maneck

unread,

Aug 21, 2004, 9:34:58 PM8/21/04

to

>
> It was Baha'u'llah himself who commanded his followers to be concerned
>with the generation they are inhabiting

A distortion. What Baha'u'llah *actually* said was "Be anxiously concerned with
the needs of the age ye live in, and centre your deliberations on its
exigencies and requirements." The 'age' here is the Dispensation of
Baha'u'llah. He was *not* saying we could change the Teachings to suit each
generations whims.

Susan Maneck

unread,

Aug 21, 2004, 9:40:29 PM8/21/04

to

> Shoghi Effendi was of course not of the same quality as Abdu'l Baha. It is
rather a lack of insight, foresight and attention to detail to
>expect that one need not write a will unless and until one is faced with
>the threat of execution by Ottoman officials.

Well, then you explain why Abdu'l-Baha didn't do so until then, even though He
was 64 at the time, four years older than the Guardian was when he died
unexpectantly.

>As Shoghi Effendi assumed
>leadership after the end of the Ottoman Empire, it would be as lacking in
>wisdom to await such an impending execution

Don't pretend to be dense, Michael. You well understand the point I was making,
The Guardian was under 60, apparently in good health, he had a wife that was
still of child-bearing age and he expected circumstances to enfold so that
before the end of his life he would likely have an heir. If that didn't happen,
there was nothing more he could say other than what was in the Aqdas regarding
succession.

dm...@ix.netcom.com

unread,

Aug 21, 2004, 11:54:12 PM8/21/04

to

cli...@eudoramail.com (Robert Clifton) wrote in message news:<e3f87f43.04082...@posting.google.com>...

Dear OBBB,

There is certainly a lot of speculation in this thread about the so
called demise of the Guardianship. The Guardianship that Baha'u'llah
began the preparations for in His Aqdas, and that 'Abdu'l-Baha
delineated in His Will and Testament. And then Shoghi Effendi spent
his thirty-six year ministry laying the foundations of the
Administrative Order, not once declaring that that Order was destined
to function without the sacred position of its Head, the line of living Guardians.

We have hashed and rehashed all this before. Yet, many in this
newsgroup openly agree that there is something wrong in Haifa, with
the current AO. Do they not wonder whether the current dilema might
be due to the fact that the current AO lacks the germ of God, the
connection that the Central Figures knew would be required to promote
the growth and ongoing guidance of the AO, a line of living guardians?

A few months ago, in these threads, we discussed that the
Guardianship symbolizes the Hereditary Principle, found down
through the ages as the method recognized to determine the
heirarchy of leadership in the Kingdoms of the world.

We recognize that we are living in a New Day, a Day which will
not be followed by night. Shoghi Effendi explained to us that
the Hereditary Principle was alive and well in the Baha'i Faith,
albeit through the office of the living guardian. Shoghi's
explanation recognized that we humans are living in the age of
enlightenment, and as such, we are expected to understand such
things as that the Hereditary Principle continues this Day, as
in the past, but that a direct physical lineage is not now
required. He explained that the Institution of Guardianship
symbolizes the Hereditary Principle. The Hereditary Principle
would continue even if a physical lineage was not possible for
the succession.

Another Branch could be chosen, and the one chosen, when
installed as guardian, would hold the office containing the germ
of God; which office would symbolize the Hereditary Principle.
That is just one more blessing of this Day, that humans no longer
have to look to a possibly incompetent successor of authority,
but are ensured that the successor will have been chosen through
a process determined through the Will of God. It should be a
simple matter to follow the instructions given us through the
Holy Books, but somehow it has not been. For over forty years now,
the Baha'is have been struggling with an AO lacking that germ of
God, and look what a mess the world is in. It is often speculated
that the Central Figures and Shoghi left enough instruction to
last the remaining 800 or so years of this Dispensation. Yet, we
have come only forty plus years, and in this short time, humans
have not shown the ability to handle the daily needs of the world.
How much worse it would become, God forbid, should the Institution
of the Guardianship not be reinstated in its rightful home in Haifa.

Sincerely,

David

Paul Hammond

unread,

Aug 22, 2004, 7:10:10 AM8/22/04

to

cli...@eudoramail.com (Robert Clifton) wrote in message news:<e3f87f43.04082...@posting.google.com>...

> > > He just didn't have any possible successors under the terms of the Will
> > > and Testament.
> Possible successors were abundant in 'other branches' as so clearly
> delineated in the will and testament. Shoghi chose and developed
> C.Mason Remey.
>

How was this "under the terms of the Will and Testament"?

The Will and Testament calls for the Hands to approve
the Guardian's choice of successor. In fact, Shoghi did
not appoint Remey, and neither did the Hands approve
his appointment. Indeed, Remey himself signed a
document which declared the fact that SHoghi had died
without leaving a successor.

Susan, just curious - does the W&T say that the members of
the UHJ have to approve the Guardian's choice of successor
also?

Michael McKenny

unread,

Aug 22, 2004, 7:44:18 AM8/22/04

to

Hi, Susan.
Time presses. I may be away for a little while.
I would like to draw to everyone's attention the significance of
Susan's statement; she is asserting that since Shoghi Effendi did not
write Sacred Text it is legitimate for the acting members of the UHJ to
interpret his writings. An immediate response is that if such an
interpretation of Shoghi Effendi is done so as to reinterpret the entirety
of the essence of the Sacred Text, such an interpretation of Shoghi
Effendi is an interpretation, a reinterpretation, of the Sacred Text and
that is forbidden.
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael

Susan Maneck

unread,

Aug 22, 2004, 9:50:13 AM8/22/04

to

>
>Susan, just curious - does the W&T say that the members of
>the UHJ have to approve the Guardian's choice of successor
>also?

No, just an elected body of Hands. But I wouldn't call it an 'approval'. It is
more like a ratification that the appointment was made. In other words, they
have to certify that they knew about it.

warmest, Susan

Trueseeker

unread,

Aug 22, 2004, 11:12:02 AM8/22/04

to

in article cga0ui$d8n$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca, Michael McKenny at
bn...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA wrote on 22/8/04 12:44 pm:

>
> Hi, Susan.
> Time presses. I may be away for a little while.
> I would like to draw to everyone's attention the significance of
> Susan's statement; she is asserting that since Shoghi Effendi did not
> write Sacred Text it is legitimate for the acting members of the UHJ to
> interpret his writings. An immediate response is that if such an
> interpretation of Shoghi Effendi is done so as to reinterpret the entirety
> of the essence of the Sacred Text, such an interpretation of Shoghi
> Effendi is an interpretation, a reinterpretation, of the Sacred Text and
> that is forbidden.
> Thrice Three Blessings, Michael

Exellent point Michael, which goes to prove coming off with a
statement like Dr Maneck has is proof she not well deepened in the
Bahai faith

TS

>
> Susan Maneck (sma...@aol.com) writes:
>>> The real members of the Universal House of Justice are forbidden
from
>>> interpreting
>>
>> They do not interpret the Sacred Text. Shoghi Effendi did that.
There is
>> nothing which forbids the House from interpreting anything else.
>>

nmlos...@hotmail.com

unread,

Aug 22, 2004, 12:24:18 PM8/22/04

to

dm...@ix.netcom.com wrote in message news:<dcf0192e.04082...@posting.google.com>...

Really want to know--go to the source.

To those of you who are new to this site and want to know who and what
the Orthodox Baha'is are, surely you must realize we have a website of
our own. Do not ask those who are denying our existence, rather, in
the spirit of "independent investagation" check us out for yourself.
We are at: http://www.iinet.net.au/~guardian or the Council website
at: http://www.rt66.com/~obfusa/council.htm or you may reach the
Council secretary at: obfcoun...@hotmail.com

At these places you will find an unprejudiced answer as to what the
Orthodox Bahai Faith has been proclaiming for over 40 years.

In the spirit of the true seeker, i wish you well. Espanola

Robert Clifton

unread,

Aug 22, 2004, 3:49:37 PM8/22/04

to

dmaxx

>>We have hashed and rehashed all this before.

And continue yet again but this time with new information from Africa.
>>…, many in this newsgroup openly agree that there is something wrong
in >>Haifa,....
It is very difficult to see deficiencies in our own child. First comes
denial, then anger, then bargaining, then acceptance, then one begins
the process of dealing with the reality. The current board
participants are very much still in the anger and bargaining stages
and they do indeed see something very wrong with this child of theirs.
Steeped in the ways of the world they have not a clue.
Dermod's question about the African decision is a right question,
though I suspect his motivation may be more to defute the findings
rather than to dispassionately consider them. Dr. Maneck in spite of
her academic credentials has summarily dismissed 'those African guys'
as weirdoes without ever seeing one word of what they found. Not
exactly good science but then radicals have more difficulty than most
recognizing their own denial and none have ever been known to want
good science. Even Stephen Hawkings, the man furthest outside the box
of anybody in the universe recently admitted an error in his thinking.

>> Shoghi's explanation recognized that we humans are living in the
age of >>enlightenment, and as such, we are expected to understand

....
We are expected to be a maturing humanity. Understanding comes with
maturity. Maturity does not happen for people at puberty but takes
time, and for all the blood of the Babis it has not happened with
humanity. Nor should it. We now have the mechanizms of maturity. We
need to learn to use them before we end up needing an abortion.

>>It should be a simple matter to follow the instructions given us
through the >>Holy Books, but somehow it has not been.

It really is a simple matter, like the simple matter of understanding
microbiology, but either understanding is much easier for those who
have done their home work and built a foundational knowledge base.

>> It is often speculated that the Central Figures and Shoghi left
enough >>instruction to last the remaining 800 or so years of this
Dispensation.

I phrase that a bit differently: There is enough information in the
writings to keep 12 billion theologians at odds for a thousand years.
The understanding is our individual job and comes from consultation.

>> Yet, we have come only forty plus years, and in this short time,
humans >>have not shown the ability to handle the daily needs of the
world.

Forty years, two hundred years, a thousand years are essentially
irrelevant since each of us have only four score and seven to develop
our individual understanding. Individually we can not rely on
precedent, we can not rely on cleric/priest type guardians and UHJs,
we can not rely on charismatic leaders, or leaders of any sort. We
have to study all the writings of God and make our own conclusion.
On the flip side, we have only been working on this problem for forty
years.
I have it solved.

OBBB

Mr. Bad Judgement

unread,

Aug 22, 2004, 6:28:07 PM8/22/04

to

Paul Hammond wrote:

> cli...@eudoramail.com (Robert Clifton) wrote in message news:<e3f87f43.04082...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>>>He just didn't have any possible successors under the terms of the Will
>>>>and Testament.
>>
>>Possible successors were abundant in 'other branches' as so clearly
>>delineated in the will and testament. Shoghi chose and developed
>>C.Mason Remey.
>>
>
>
> How was this "under the terms of the Will and Testament"?
>
> The Will and Testament calls for the Hands to approve
> the Guardian's choice of successor. In fact, Shoghi did
> not appoint Remey, and neither did the Hands approve
> his appointment. Indeed, Remey himself signed a
> document which declared the fact that SHoghi had died
> without leaving a successor.
>

AS it happens, the Hands did not need so much to 'approve' as to 'like',
as they needed to 'assent', and, as I understand it, Shoghi Effendi saw
it as effectively to 'witness' that an appointment had been made, and
who it was. As it happens, the Hands were pretty much in agreement,
that, on the contrary, no appointment had been made. Shortly after the
death of Shoghi Effendi, the Hands, rather than announcing the identity
of the successor whom Shoghi Effendi had told them to assent to, instead
announced that he had died and left no successor.

- Mr. Bad

Barbara

unread,

Aug 22, 2004, 10:14:20 PM8/22/04

to

In response to the issue you bring up concerning Mason Remey's
appointment to succeed Shoghi Effendi not being assented to by the
nine elected Hands, I would like to quote part of a letter written in
1999 by Frank Schlatter.

"The appointment of Mason Remey to the presidency of the embryonic
Universal House of Justice was make in March of 1951, and at that time
there were no Hands to give their assent. Thus, that provision of the
Will simply was not operational at the time. Nor was it later. The
Hands never did elect the nine who were "at all times" to "be occupied
in the important services in the work of the guardian of the Cause of
God". That body of nine never existed. And even if the Hands had
ever elected the nine Hands for such a function, the Hands so chosen
would not have had the power to overturn the Guardian's selection. As
Shoghi Effendi points out, Abdu'l-Baha could not have provided for
such a conflict within the Faith. (Baha'i News,p1 Feb. 1955)"

"Yes, that provision of the Will never took effect in Shoghi Effendi's
lifetime. Nor did the first Guardian of the Faith ever sit with and
vote on legislative enactments of a Universal House of Justice. That
aspect of the Charter of the World Order also was not in effect. In
might be noted, though, that for those who follow the present day
Guardian of the Faith, the provision can eventually become an
actuality."

"...I would like to cite the following from a letter written on behalf
of Shoghi Effendi on March 25, 1930:

"The contents of the Will of the Master is far too much for the
present
generation to comprehend. It needs at least a century of actual
working
before the treasures of wisdom hidden in it can be revealed."

"Obviously, we have not had anywhere close to "at least a century" in
which the provisions of the Wll and Testament have been in actual
operation. Yet Baha'is of various persuasions have found ways to
circumvent what the Will provides. Shoghi Effendi alluded to
"treasures of wisdom hidden" within the Will. Does anyone have any
notion what Shoghi Effendi meant?"

"What are the "treasures of wisdom" in the Will? What makes them
hidden? Why are they hidden?"

"Or are those treasures as obvious as the missing epistle in Edgar
Allan Poe's short story "The Purloined Letter". (The letter was out
in the open where anyone who was really looking could see it.)"

Barbara

Randy Burns

unread,

Aug 23, 2004, 2:31:34 AM8/23/04

to

"kaweah" <dje...@kaweah.com> wrote in message
news:fe72f2b1.04082...@posting.google.com...

> sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message
news:<20040820113800...@mb-m05.aol.com>...
> I've no doubt of that, Susan. In my opinion, his silliness detracts
> from the important issues regarding the Baha'i Covenant. He served the
> UHJ well with his silliness!

It's true that if our CB friends did not exist, we would have to invent
them. The best method of maintaining the power of the inept is thru the
'enemy without or the enemy within' bit. Always seems to work with most any
crowd, Baha'i included, and lucky us cause we have both!

> And he had nothing to do with the development of that situation?
> Excommunicating people for associating with their closest family
> members? I'm not saying any of them could have been a decent guardian,
> but wow, talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water!

My conclusion is that Shoghi Effendi foresaw that the Guardianship was
ultimately going to do two things to the faith, create one group that
worshiped the Guardian as God and another group which would fight that type
of idoltry and be constanly in the process of excommunication. Thus he took
the only alternative open, the "accidental" ending of the Guardianship as
originally designed.

> Perhaps he ought to have left the Baha'i world a little specific

> guidance in that regard, so they wouldn't have to go hunting through
> their untranslated scripture for shades of implication.

Overcoming such problems would be a sign of maturity which is much lacking
in the current leadership of the Faith, but didn't seem to be lacking back
in 1963. If the Baha'i Faith is the Faith of a mature humankind, then an
immature Baha'i Faith doesn't deserve much consideration from the world's
peoples.

> The people of Baha had a lot of thinking to do, didn't they? It was
> ultimately your choice, and it continues to be your choice. Do you
> continue to toss out dissidents in the name of unity?, or allow people
> to harbor dangerous opinions within the fold? Ah, but you must obey
> the UHJ. What a shame. You could elect more liberal administrators,

> but the UHJ has taken upon itself to excommunicate liberals. What a
> fix you're in.

I'm not sure that it is really the UHJ which is the problem. They seemed to
have given power over to the Continental Board of Counsellors, which now
controls the UHJ thru the election process. Almost all, or perhaps all, of
the House members now sitting are former CBC's. CBCs are the only Baha'is
allowed to campaign for the office and thus generally are the only ones
likely to be elected to it. Thus the real flow of authority in the Faith,
from Baha'u'llah to his elected UHJ has been disrupted.

> Specifically, in what document, and where in that document, are the

> powers of the UHJ specified, both with and without a guardian at its
> head? I am not at all convinced that the UHJ can operate indefinitely
> without a guardian, assuming--in practical terms--all the powers of
> the guardianship.

The way I analyze this, it is the Cadre Baha'is thru its highest
functionaries in the CBC who act primarily in the place of the Guardian and
have thus breached the divide in the Faith between the Guardianship and the
UHJ which is embedded in the W&T and the writings of Shoghi Effendi. By
controlling the UHJ thru the elected CBC's, the Cadre Baha'is now control
and run the Faith without any of the authority which vests from
Baha'u'llah's writings.

> Yes, Abdu'l-Baha may have conceived of a time when Shoghi would not
> have been old enough to do his job, and so some interim leadership
> would be needed, but that does not necessarily entitle the UHJ to
> operate indefinitely without a guardian and without restrictions.
> Perhaps that is why Shoghi Effendi kept quiet about the whole mess. He
> knew he was painted into a corner.

Personally I think the UHJ is completely entitled to operate indefinitely
without a Guardian and without restrictions, however the writings of Shoghi
Effendi must be scrupulously adhered to in terms of the election process and
the laws of the Faith of Baha'u'llah must also be adhered to and normal
forms of due process need to be applied to all conflicts within the Faith.

> I've followed all this hair splitting back and forth between Baha'i
> factions, and I am not impressed. Someone ought to have hired a lawyer
> and put it all down in writing. All you've got left is your magic of
> conferred infallibility. Anybody can promise divine confirmations.

> What you need--and what you claim to have--is something like a
> constitution, but what you have is student government 101.

Exactly, we have total immaturity, as the Faith mirrors society. There is
no magic in religion. Religion can give man a chance to know when he is
faced with right or wrong but cannot make the choice for him, that choice
will always be up to us.

Cheers, Randy

Randy Burns

unread,

Aug 23, 2004, 2:47:09 AM8/23/04

to

"kaweah" <dje...@kaweah.com> wrote in message
news:fe72f2b1.04082...@posting.google.com...

> Randy, I wonder what about the following passage indicates that the
> House of Justice ought to play the role of thought police:
>
> "All matters of State should be referred to the House of Justice, but
> acts of worship must be observed according to that which God hath
> revealed in His Book." -- 8th Ishraq
>
> Is a person's status as a Baha'i a matter of State, or is it a
> spiritual matter? Mind you, a person's ability to worship as a member
> of a spiritual community is impacted here. Picture a world that is
> predominantly Baha'i: what would the Baha'i community do with the
> village whacko then? Cast him out and shun him? Should the UHJ be
> separating the wheat from the chaff, or ought they to leave that job
> to God?

I think the problem lies in the development of the Cadre Baha'i (what we
called "The Deepened Baha'i--Loyal in the Covenant"). The whole process of
the Baha'i Faith today, as it is practised, is not to create a community
thru religious practice, but rather to create the Cadre Baha'i or Deepened
Baha'i--Loyal in the Covenant. Thus the praxis of the Baha'i Faith
currently revolves not around religious ritual in the normal sense but
rather around the process of recruiting and transforming ideal types into
the Cadre Baha'i. Part of that process involves and actually requires the
necessity of total excommication of those who are unable to assist in that
process.

According to Frank S. Meyer in his book "The Moulding of Communists : The
Training of the Communist Cadre," people are conceived of , not as those who
make up the association , those for whom the association exists , but rather
as material to be developed, fertilized, watered--and pruned. This is what
the Baha'i Faith has been reduced to as a result of the creation of the
Cadre elite origanization which replaced the Guardianship.

The one thing that the UHJ does not do very much of are those very tasks
which are actually set out for it in the W&T. Perhaps it would be better if
they would actually begin to do those things.

Cheers, Randy

Robert Clifton

unread,

Aug 23, 2004, 8:44:01 AM8/23/04

to

"Randy Burns" >

The whole process of
> the Baha'i Faith today, as it is practised, is not to create a community
> thru religious practice, but rather to create the Cadre Baha'i or Deepened
> Baha'i--Loyal in the Covenant.

Noteable insight! Thank you.

The Baha'i Faith is more like a grass roots democracy, with any
existant power invested in the Local House of Justice. The UHJ under a
living guardian is advisory only. They have the authority to speak for
God but no power to enforce anything. The Local House is charged with
building a spiritual community of all religions, all people in their
specific area and the LocalHJ alone has the right to determine if an
individual in that community is working with or against the process.
The LHJ does not have the right to dismiss anyone but must get
authority from above.
There needs to be a major pardigm shift in Baha'is thinking about
Baha'i.
The age of maturity requires individual accountability, individual
accountability requires total autonomy. You tell me what God said and
I will determine whether or not I will do it.

OBBB

Robert Clifton

unread,

Aug 23, 2004, 8:59:56 AM8/23/04

to

"Randy Burns"

> My conclusion is that Shoghi Effendi foresaw that the Guardianship was
> ultimately going to do two things to the faith, create one group that
> worshiped the Guardian as God and another group which would fight that type
> of idoltry and be constanly in the process of excommunication. Thus he took
> the only alternative open, the "accidental" ending of the Guardianship as
> originally designed.

There are two problems with this conclusion. One; Ruhhiyah Kahnum
stated on stage at the St Louis convention that the lack of an heir
was not for lack of trying. Accidental then would apply only if Shoghi
had some way of controlling a million or so wiggling tails. Tell me
how, I'll bottle it and we'll all be rich.
Two: God would have known that His plan would be short circuited which
would have put God at odds with Himself. Now I agree God presents me
with more paradoxes than I can handle so maybe God really doesn't know
what He is doing or maybe He really is a pathological liar. We have
evidence that some great men are. Somehow I expect a different
conclusion may be needed.

> > Perhaps he ought to have left the Baha'i world a little specific
> > guidance in that regard, so they wouldn't have to go hunting through
> > their untranslated scripture for shades of implication.

What? The elemination of independent investigation?

> If the Baha'i Faith is the Faith of a mature humankind, then an
> immature Baha'i Faith doesn't deserve much consideration from the world's
> peoples.

I'll second that.
But then it already was.

> Exactly, we have total immaturity, as the Faith mirrors society. There is
> no magic in religion. Religion can give man a chance to know when he is
> faced with right or wrong but cannot make the choice for him, that choice
> will always be up to us.

OBBB

Robert Clifton

unread,

Aug 23, 2004, 9:02:16 AM8/23/04

to

incumbent

> I was, of course kidding about the baby eating.

Yeah I know, just too good a shot to pass.
>
> Thank you for the quick insight.

Glad to oblige.

OBBB

Michael McKenny

unread,

Aug 23, 2004, 9:15:17 AM8/23/04

to

Greetings, Susan and all.

Susan Maneck (sma...@aol.com) writes:

I notice that sticking a significant thought down the page can lead to it
perhaps being unread, so I post this last portion of one of my posts at
the top here. I think the point is very significant:

dm...@ix.netcom.com

unread,

Aug 23, 2004, 10:51:26 AM8/23/04

to

cli...@eudoramail.com (Robert Clifton) wrote in message news:<e3f87f43.04082...@posting.google.com>...

Dear OBBB,

Thank you for your usual lucid and thought provoking
comments.

Your comments to one of my points was particularly
insightful: I have made the statement a number of times
that Shoghi could not possibly have left enough
interpretive substance in his 36 years to cover the
remaining 800 or so years of this Dispensation. You
have correctly pointed out that there is indeed
enough in the countless words of the books and writings
that we now have, to last for the entire Dispensation,
and perhaps beyond.

My point is, although not clearly stated, that he could
not have foreseen the countless day to day problems in
this evolving world to have left topical solutions to
those as yet unforseen problems.

Only a living guardian can do that.

Sincerely,

David

dmaxx
>
> >>We have hashed and rehashed all this before.
> And continue yet again but this time with new information from Africa.

> >>?, many in this newsgroup openly agree that there is something wrong

Susan Maneck

unread,

Aug 23, 2004, 1:28:04 PM8/23/04

to

>
>> Is a person's status as a Baha'i a matter of State, or is it a
>> spiritual matter?

Dear Dan,

The Israqat makes the distinction between acts of worship and political
affairs, not spiritual vs. secular affairs. Abdu'l-Baha made it clear in the
Tablet on the Powers and Principles of the House of Justice that the House has
jurisdiction over both spiritual and secular matters.

>Mind you, a person's ability to worship as a member
>> of a spiritual community is impacted here.

Mind you, you don't have to be a Baha'i to worship in a Mashriqu'l-Adkhar. As
for the obligatory prayers, whose to stop you? Karen says them.

>Should the UHJ be
>> separating the wheat from the chaff, or ought they to leave that job
>> to God?

Unless it is choking out the wheat they usually do so. The House only acts when
behavior is deemed harmful to the community. But as far as having the right to
determine the status of as a Baha'i the Guardian indicated that responsibility
rested even with Local Spiritual Assemblies.

Randy writes:

>The one thing that the UHJ does not do very much of are those very tasks
>which are actually set out for it in the W&T.

Oh yeah? Have you read the W&T? Do you know what those are?

warmest, Susan

Robert Clifton

unread,

Aug 23, 2004, 2:08:17 PM8/23/04

to

dmaxx

> My point is, although not clearly stated, that he could
> not have foreseen the countless day to day problems in
> this evolving world to have left topical solutions to
> those as yet unforseen problems.
>
> Only a living guardian can do that.

Exactly!

You and I and Shoghi have no more idea what will be needed in 2644
than the Apostles of Jesus could have solved the problems of fossil
fuels today. Living, dynamic religion is the only way for religion to
survive over time. The bogus house with its acting administrators
simply will not be up to the task, as has already been so amply
illustrated, and so lucidly stated in the writings.

OBBB

TahirihStarr*

unread,

Aug 23, 2004, 3:34:20 PM8/23/04

to

dm...@ix.netcom.com wrote in message news:<dcf0192e.04082...@posting.google.com>...

> cli...@eudoramail.com (Robert Clifton) wrote in message news:<e3f87f43.04082...@posting.google.com>...
>
> Dear OBBB,
>
> Thank you for your usual lucid and thought provoking
> comments.
>
> Your comments to one of my points was particularly
> insightful: I have made the statement a number of times
> that Shoghi could not possibly have left enough
> interpretive substance in his 36 years to cover the
> remaining 800 or so years of this Dispensation.

The very idea of 'sealing off' interpretation of the Word is insane,
or just relegating it to one individual, when you consider that each
word has a myraid of meaning...more than 70x7 - and each Word is
understood according to the level of consious awareness an individual
is operating from at the time. Years ago when reading from one of
Baha'u'llah's Tablets I understood that we are just projected to this
realm (at the time other baha'is quaffed). But today everyone knows we
are only here holographically. Yep absolute 'insanity' to seal off
interpretation (continuous flow of understanding from higher realms) -
do you guys realize how far removed this idea is from any kind of
meaningful progress. Like there is just one person (guaradian) who
understands what a Word is imparting. What kind of person would want
to rob humanity from their inner gnosis and say they are the only one
to know what a revealed Word would mean. God forbid!

Tahirih*

Karen Bacquet

unread,

Aug 23, 2004, 7:34:13 PM8/23/04

to

>
>>Mind you, a person's ability to worship as a member
>>
>>>of a spiritual community is impacted here.
>
>
> Mind you, you don't have to be a Baha'i to worship in a Mashriqu'l-Adkhar. As
> for the obligatory prayers, whose to stop you? Karen says them.

Karen says Baha'i obligatory prayers because she's a Baha'i, bound by
the laws of worship that you are speaking of. I've even said prayers
with other Baha'is in "spiritual community" since resigning -- not real
often, but sometimes. Considering how on-again, off-again Baha'i
community life is here, it wasn't all that big of a change.

How much of an impact one's status has on one's ability to worship in a
Baha'i community depends very much on the community. As I've
discovered, mine is pretty mellow and open.

Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk

Dermod Ryder

unread,

Aug 23, 2004, 8:19:28 PM8/23/04

to

"Karen Bacquet" <bac...@tco.net> wrote in message
news:10ikvo1...@corp.supernews.com...

> Karen says Baha'i obligatory prayers because she's a Baha'i, bound by
> the laws of worship that you are speaking of. I've even said prayers
> with other Baha'is in "spiritual community" since resigning -- not real
> often, but sometimes. Considering how on-again, off-again Baha'i
> community life is here, it wasn't all that big of a change.
>
> How much of an impact one's status has on one's ability to worship in a
> Baha'i community depends very much on the community. As I've
> discovered, mine is pretty mellow and open.

No problems with car parks then?

Dermod Ryder

unread,

Aug 23, 2004, 8:24:41 PM8/23/04

to

"Susan Maneck " <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040821042213...@mb-m22.aol.com...
> >A substantive legal case can be advanced that the UHJ is an
> >illegal assembly of Grumpies laying fraudulent claim to a title and
powers
> >they have no legitimate claim to.
>
> By whom? Those guys in Africa?

Of course! And anybody else with a modicum of intelligence. Is that why you
haven't tried it?

> >Because he had alienated just about everybody in the family. It is a
> >tribute to the man that he managed to do that.
>
> He didn't alienate them, they betrayed him.

"You say potato, I say potato,
You say tomato, I say tomato!"

> >Unfortunately he did nothing to cover the
> >eventuality that an heir could not be produced.
>
> At 57 he had no reason to think he would die soon. Abdu'l-Baha wrote His
W&T
> when He thought He was about to be executed.

Highly irresponsible! The most basic rule of monarchy is to establish and
secure the succession.

> >Indeed but weren't they all predicated on the final instruction that the
> >composition of the House, not touched upon prior to the W&T,
>
> No. Baha'u'llah anticipated that His line could come to an end prior to
the
> formation of the House of Justice and He gave instructions as to what
should
> happen in that eventuality.

But Abdul Baha determined the composition of the House ... ego if it cannot
be constituted as established by the most recent directive, it cannot be
established.

Karen Bacquet

unread,

Aug 23, 2004, 8:45:01 PM8/23/04

to

Nah, we don't have car parks; we have driveways. And a number of
Baha'is here, living in apartments, didn't even have those; Redneck
Heaven is a working-class town. Anybody who is overly image-conscious
would be very out of step among Baha'is here, and I have a couple of
friends who are extremely sensitive about any sort of perceived
snobbishness.

Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk

>
>

Michael McKenny

unread,

Aug 23, 2004, 9:34:36 PM8/23/04

to

Hi, Susan.

Susan Maneck (sma...@aol.com) writes:
>>
>> It was Baha'u'llah himself who commanded his followers to be concerned
>>with the generation they are inhabiting
>
> A distortion. What Baha'u'llah *actually* said was "Be anxiously concerned with
> the needs of the age ye live in, and centre your deliberations on its
> exigencies and requirements." The 'age' here is

An authoritative interpretation, Susan? Baha'u'llah forbids even the
real members of the Universal House of Justice from interpreting the
Sacred Text. It has been so convenient for the fundamentalists throughout
history to extract, as if they were playing an accordion, what enables
them to remain in power, to freeze religion so as to render it a dead
thing, to argue that humans don't really have free will to perform
virtuous deeds, but because of some authoritative and legalistic
interpretation of sacred text, really what is despicable to a virtuous
person, how much more so to any benevolent deity is forced without option
upon humanity.
This attitude is the distortion and Baha'u'llah soundly condemned it,
forbidding his followers from following in the footsteps of those who
muddied the pure spiritual waters of previous religions.
Does not the Baha'i Faith have the concept, if one persists in denying
the spiritual message that one should be concerned with an ever advancing
civilization, with the steadily rising sun of the Revelation of
Baha'u'llah, with the constantly growing Tree of this millennium (all of
this drawn from the Sacred Text, though the fundamentalist would omit it)
describe the "age" in which Baha'u'llah lived as "The Heroic Age" and
limit the duration of this age from 1844 to 1921, although an alternate
calculation places the most recent border as sometime in the 1930s? Even
tossing away the spirit of Baha'u'llah and seeking to reverse his teaching
on the basis of the literal translation of the word "time" asserting this
is really "age," still does not justify living in this 21st Century as if
it were the same time as when communications from the Baha'i world centre
came by hand from one riding donkey and camel.

> the Dispensation of
> Baha'u'llah. He was *not* saying we could change the Teachings to suit each
> generations whims.
>

Change the teachings? The acting members of the Universal House of
Justice, even as you have demonstrated in this very post, by arguing
when Baha'u'llah commanded his followers to be concerned with the time in
which they lived that he meant no such thing, he intended to force
humanity without option to live as if still camels and donkeys bore
messengers from the World Centre, are the ones who have changed the
teachings, tossing in the ditch the precious world unifying spirituality
of the Founder of Baha'i and substituting for it the very same rotting
fundamentalism the Divine Physician came to cure.
The point has clearly been made, and more may be posted further.
To the undistorted spirit of Baha'u'llah's Revelation, ever growing
throughout the heart of the planet, notwithstanding the most strenuous
efforts of the ambitious and their cowed apologists to bury it.

Michael McKenny

unread,

Aug 23, 2004, 9:37:49 PM8/23/04

to

Hi, Susan.

Susan Maneck (sma...@aol.com) writes:
> Don't pretend to be dense, Michael. You well understand the point I was making,
> The Guardian was under 60,

I thought he was born in 1897 and died on November 4, 1957. How many
days under 60 was he?

Michael McKenny

unread,

Aug 23, 2004, 9:52:14 PM8/23/04

to

Susan Maneck (sma...@aol.com) writes:
> Don't pretend to be dense, Michael. You well understand the point I was making,

> The Guardian was under 60, apparently in good health,

It is important to stress the Baha'i concept of the validity of a
variety of personal opinions. Susan, you have one valid opinion. However,
as an historian you cannot be ignorant of the reality that anyone of
Shoghi Effendi's age would be lacking foresight, wisdom and responsibility
were the only reason he failed to write a will that he thought he was in
good health at 60 and believed he had a wife, although she was 47 (must have
been about that if Abdu'l Baha was bouncing her on his knee in Montreal in
1912) and they'd failed to produce any offspring, still she would give him
an heir. This is even ignoring the turbulance of the times and localities he
inhabited.

> he had a wife that was
> still of child-bearing age and he expected circumstances to enfold so that
> before the end of his life he would likely have an heir. If that didn't happen,
> there was nothing more he could say other than what was in the Aqdas regarding
> succession.

The issue is very interesting, and if you are able to distance yourself
from subjectivity and as an historian ponder possibilities unbiased, you
will observe reasonable theories not all of them necessarly maligning the
character of Shoghi Effendi. Indeed, I posted here several years ago, I
believe, that it was a valid opinion that Shoghi Effendi had been so
overwhelmed by the extent of the responsibility thrust upon himself at a
tender age that he decided no other human would be burdened in this
manner, or perhaps to use a more precise nuance, he prayed to the
All-Merciful to never again so burden a mortal soul and this prayer was
granted.
Further on this in a separate post.

Susan Maneck

unread,

Aug 23, 2004, 10:16:02 PM8/23/04

to

>
>Highly irresponsible! The most basic rule of monarchy is to establish and
>secure the succession.

I'm sure he was working on it.

Michael McKenny

unread,

Aug 23, 2004, 10:17:51 PM8/23/04

to

Susan Maneck (sma...@aol.com) writes:
> before the end of his life he would likely have an heir. If that didn't happen,
> there was nothing more he could say other than what was in the Aqdas regarding
> succession.
>

What so many have overlooked in considering the circumstance that
Shoghi Effendi passed away without leaving a will is that this may have
been intended by the All Highest as a bounty and not as a curse to the
Baha'is.
Baha'u'llah, speaking as a Manifestation of the Will of the Most
Merciful had clearly proclaimed the harmony of the human species, had
clearly provided the means for the accomplishment of world peace in the
divine principles he revealed as an antidote to all that has divided the
species throughout its childhood. Prejudices based on sex, religion, race,
economic and social status were eliminated. Fundamentalist literalism was
erased. The precious nature of the diversity of human beings was
established. The validity of the vast variety of human understandings was
announced and each Baha'i prohibited from attempting to erect the sole
dogmatic structures that were in previous eras the skeletons of the
spiritless fundamentalisms.
Baha'u'llah had planted the garden of a world spiritual democratic
system entrusted with consulting in a highly ethical, moral and
unprejudiced manner to produce, maintain and preserve the harmony of
humanity, through the ever changing realities of this contingent world.
What more was needed, save only to accept that in this time, for the
totality of the maturity of the human species the childish attitude of
enforcing fundamentalist dogma upon the population (a thing incompatible
with human harmony, due to the divinely created diversity of human
understandings) has been outgrown?
God decided that there was no longer a need for one individual to
impose his thought upon the people of Baha, and this was not in order to
allow the ambitious to utilize this tool to alter the spirit of the
Revelation and recreate a fundamentalism within the Faith Revealed as an
antidote to the rigidity of ever divisive fundamentalism.
There is no harm in the absence of Shoghi Effendi's will, except that
inflicted upon the Baha'is by those who assume that it was an accident
that no such will was written, or at least none was announced as found. If,
instead of such an assumption, the Baha'i life is lived in its resplendent
glory, demonstrating the spiritual principles, including that accepting the
validity of the rainbow of human viewpoints, the creative capacity of the
All-Powerful, the Most Merciful, the Great Giver will be very evident.

John MacLeod

unread,

Aug 23, 2004, 11:02:44 PM8/23/04

to

"Susan Maneck " <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20040821213458...@mb-m25.aol.com...

What Baha'u'llah *actually* said was "Be anxiously concerned with
> the needs of the age ye live in, and centre your deliberations on its

> exigencies and requirements." The 'age' here is the Dispensation of
> Baha'u'llah.

unread,

Aug 24, 2004, 7:33:57 AM8/24/04

to

Hi, Starr,

TahirihStarr* (tahirih...@id7.com) writes:
> Dear Michael - If you note in the following passage it is proclaimed
> that Messengers only come according to the *capacity* of the
> people...and as time goes on the unfoldment of the rays of the Sun and
> capacity increases:
>

This is, of course, another response to Susan's attempt to apologize
for the acting members of the Universal House of Justice and maintain,
despite the enormous extent of the Baha'i Revelation penned in terms of
current "embryonic" stage of growth, etc., that the embryo must remain an
emryo for a thousand years. Who has seen an acorn growing as an acorn for
a thousand years? Is it not time to get off the mule and soar aloft
according to the technology, capacity and needs of the times in which we
live, as commanded by the Glory of God?

> Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, pp. 87-88:
> XXXVIII. Know of a certainty that in every Dispensation the light of
> Divine Revelation hath been vouchsafed unto men in direct proportion
> to their spiritual capacity. Consider the sun. How feeble its rays the
> moment it appeareth above the horizon. How gradually its warmth and
> potency increase as it approacheth its zenith, enabling meanwhile all
> created
> things to adapt themselves to the growing intensity of its light. How
> steadily it declineth until it reacheth its setting point. Were it,
> all of a sudden, to manifest the energies latent within it, it would,
> no doubt, cause injury to all created things

A very different thing from saying that since our thinking was formed
by those riding mules, then forever, or at least till a thousand years
have elapsed, we must all be bound by the chains of literalist
fundamentalism for a thousand years. As Muhammad said there are those who
would chain up God's hands, but God's hands are not to be chained up. This
is a satanic fancy conceived in the ambitions of them concerned with
retaining power and in the denial by those refusing to see with their own
eyes the best beloved justice of their Lord.

> The capacity must have increased whereby every human has a heart to
> accept the unfolding rays, as it were.....

Of course, capacity has increased. The acorn has grown into a tree and
this generation is very much in need of the peace creating, peace
preserving, peace sustaining spirituality to be seen as clear as the noon
day sun in the Sacred Texts of the Blessed Beauty.

>
> Here's to the 'continuous flow of revelation' as Tahirih proclaimed!
> TahirihStarr*
> Living Spirit

Here's to real leaders of Baha'i doing more to advance human harmony
than sitting on fundamentalist asses.

dm...@ix.netcom.com

unread,

Aug 24, 2004, 11:06:19 AM8/24/04

to

tahirih...@id7.com (TahirihStarr*) wrote in message news:<f0b3358c.0408...@posting.google.com>...

Dear Tahirih,

The issues that OBBB and I are discussing here does not
"seal off" the interpretation of the Word. Now, if we
were following the current Haifa version of the Writings,
I would agree that the belief that Shoghi is the only
Guardian that this Faith will ever have, is sealing off
the interpretation.

The Orthodox Baha'is do not believe that the Word has been
sealed off. We believe that a continuing line of living
guardians ensures that God's Will will be a part of
whatever the guardian imparts to the world.

This in no manner keeps an individual from a closeness with
God, nor does it preclude his independent thought process
being robbed of insightful progress concurrent with his
relationship with God.

The process of having the guardian as the focal point of
God's Will on earth, among other things, is a guarantee
that God will be present in the worlds management, rather
than having countless opinions competing with each other,
with a resulting confusion as we see in the world around
us at this time.

'Abdu'l-Baha had no intention of squelching individual
thought, and individual relationships with God when He
penned His Will and Testament.

Sincerely,

David

Dermod Ryder

unread,

Aug 24, 2004, 11:56:33 AM8/24/04

to

"Susan Maneck " <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20040823221602...@mb-m05.aol.com...

> >
> >Highly irresponsible! The most basic rule of monarchy is to establish
and
> >secure the succession.
>
> I'm sure he was working on it.

That's no excuse! Was he so dumb that he didn't realise that he could have
been hit by a bus at anytime? The succession has to sorted out as soon as
somebody succeeds to a position. Ideally there should be an heir and spare
... as is the custom in the British Royals who currently have a full
complement of heirs apparent and presumptive (11 in all of Liz's children
and grand-children). After that, there's all the cousins to pick from....!

Shoghi was really not a nice guy if the family turned on him the way you say
it did. He screwed things up royally in terms of the continuing divine
intervention.

Susan Maneck

unread,

Aug 24, 2004, 12:57:34 PM8/24/04

to

>
>Shoghi was really not a nice guy if the family turned on him the way you say
>it did.

They turned on Abdu'l-Baha before him.

TahirihStarr*

unread,

Aug 24, 2004, 3:18:44 PM8/24/04

to

bn...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael McKenny) wrote in message news:<cgf935$2k0$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...

Dear Michael - Here's to the present. We can not have the past, and we
don't have the future, but we have the 'now'. And if we want a decent
future we pave the way in the 'now'. I think maybe the susan's and
uhjers of the world are trying to recreate the days of Qajar period on
earth...but we been there and done that - according to your Man, those
were some of the darkest days. Why should we memorize the Quran when
it is our own experiential gnosis that makes and Words living with any
meaning. Why dumb down the capacity and freeze the acorn one would
wonder? I still can't get over how some people think one man
(guaradian)should tell them how to experience the Word.

> Hi, Starr,
>
> TahirihStarr* (tahirih...@id7.com) writes:
> > Dear Michael - If you note in the following passage it is proclaimed
> > that Messengers only come according to the *capacity* of the
> > people...and as time goes on the unfoldment of the rays of the Sun and
> > capacity increases:
> >
> This is, of course, another response to Susan's attempt to apologize
> for the acting members of the Universal House of Justice and maintain,
> despite the enormous extent of the Baha'i Revelation penned in terms of
> current "embryonic" stage of growth, etc., that the embryo must remain an
> emryo for a thousand years. Who has seen an acorn growing as an acorn for
> a thousand years? Is it not time to get off the mule and soar aloft
> according to the technology, capacity and needs of the times in which we
> live, as commanded by the Glory of God?

But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear.
Truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous men longed to see
what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did
not hear it.
Mathew 13: 16-17

> > Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, pp. 87-88:
> > XXXVIII. Know of a certainty that in every Dispensation the light of
> > Divine Revelation hath been vouchsafed unto men in direct proportion
> > to their spiritual capacity. Consider the sun. How feeble its rays the
> > moment it appeareth above the horizon. How gradually its warmth and
> > potency increase as it approacheth its zenith, enabling meanwhile all
> > created
> > things to adapt themselves to the growing intensity of its light. How
> > steadily it declineth until it reacheth its setting point. Were it,
> > all of a sudden, to manifest the energies latent within it, it would,
> > no doubt, cause injury to all created things
>
> A very different thing from saying that since our thinking was formed
> by those riding mules,

Lol - Maybe some have become mules and are being ridden, but just
don't know it --- lower than the beast that perish, so your Man has
said.

then forever, or at least till a thousand years
> have elapsed, we must all be bound by the chains of literalist
> fundamentalism for a thousand years. As Muhammad said there are those who
> would chain up God's hands, but God's hands are not to be chained up. This
> is a satanic fancy conceived in the ambitions of them concerned with
> retaining power and in the denial by those refusing to see with their own
> eyes the best beloved justice of their Lord.

Well, maybe they (those mentioned above) will all be called back to
the melting pot by the divine Hand for a recasting - or a laser ray
will hit their pituitary gland, if that's the medium that they are
thinking through...:)

>
> > The capacity must have increased whereby every human has a heart to
> > accept the unfolding rays, as it were.....
>
> Of course, capacity has increased. The acorn has grown into a tree and
> this generation is very much in need of the peace creating, peace
> preserving, peace sustaining spirituality to be seen as clear as the noon
> day sun in the Sacred Texts of the Blessed Beauty.

Let the text be clothed in purified and illumined new understanding
for the suit has become sullied and the wearers gone to dust. Wake up
a-little suzie it is time to go home...the movie wasn't too hot, in
fact it was a flop, wake up 0-little old men, it's time to go home.
It's time for the Great Reversal!

May the arcorns throughout the earth blossom into verdant Trees of
Life adorned with fresh goodies.

TahirihStarr*

Michael McKenny

unread,

Aug 24, 2004, 11:01:28 PM8/24/04

to

Hi, Starr.

TahirihStarr* (tahirih...@id7.com) writes:
> Dear Michael - Here's to the present. We can not have the past, and we
> don't have the future, but we have the 'now'.

One of the Pagans I know has a sig line that reads:
Yesterday is history;
Tomorrow is a mystery.
Today's a gift.
That's why they call it the present.

> And if we want a decent
> future we pave the way in the 'now'. I think maybe the susan's and
> uhjers of the world are trying to recreate the days of Qajar period on
> earth...but we been there and done that - according to your Man, those
> were some of the darkest days.

You know, this all reminds me of a very funny scene in a Dr. Who
episode. There is this giant spider screeching, "I shall be master of the
universe!" and Dr. Who replies, "You megalomaniacs are all so monotonous;
can't you think of anything original." Yes, indeed, humanity has observed
this boring rerun numerous times. It is time to try the originality to be
found in this New Day.

> Why should we memorize the Quran when
> it is our own experiential gnosis that makes and Words living with any
> meaning. Why dumb down the capacity and freeze the acorn one would
> wonder? I still can't get over how some people think one man
> (guaradian)should tell them how to experience the Word.

It is even more astonishing that anyone could imagine this one man, or
the nine who are reinterpreting him, could have nothing new to say, only
the old ill considered fundamentalism Baha'u'llah came to heal.

> But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear.
> Truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous men longed to see
> what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did
> not hear it.
> Mathew 13: 16-17
>

Yes, it's really an amazing gift to be alive in this generation, and
all that is required for the achievement of heaven on Earth is for the
humans to appreciate the value of each other and live accordingly.

Since I do not believe in fate, how much less in the freezing of acorns
so they grow as acorns for a thousand years, I know that there is the free
will for the growth of humanity out of the mud of fundamentalism into the
clear sky of universality. I again clarify that this word fundamentalism
has no connection with traditional spirituality. There have been mystics,
moral people and spiritual souls in each generation, as these have lived
and do in every land. Fundamentalism is intolerant, exclusivist, narrow
and word picking literalist attempting to place power in the hands of
individual clerics and a legalistic faction whose interpretation of
spiritual texts would chain up the mercy, compassion and power of God
and force humans to commit against each other deeds forbidden by each holy
soul. That is what is condemned and what in this new day is the malady
requiring the remedy of spirituality.

>
>>
>> > The capacity must have increased whereby every human has a heart to
>> > accept the unfolding rays, as it were.....
>>
>> Of course, capacity has increased. The acorn has grown into a tree and
>> this generation is very much in need of the peace creating, peace
>> preserving, peace sustaining spirituality to be seen as clear as the noon
>> day sun in the Sacred Texts of the Blessed Beauty.
>
> Let the text be clothed in purified and illumined new understanding
> for the suit has become sullied and the wearers gone to dust. Wake up
> a-little suzie it is time to go home...the movie wasn't too hot, in
> fact it was a flop, wake up 0-little old men, it's time to go home.
> It's time for the Great Reversal!

Yes, indeed, if it is really a new day, then it's time to wake up and
accept that the long slumber of the fundamentalists seeking to hibernate
inside is taking place while outside there rises the sun, bloom the
multihued, many scented, awesomely beautiful flowers in the vibrant garden
of humanity.

> May the acorns throughout the earth blossom into verdant Trees of

> Life adorned with fresh goodies.
>
> TahirihStarr*
>

Ian: multiman@aros.net

unread,

Aug 25, 2004, 6:39:32 PM8/25/04

to

They still blindly adhere to the interpretations of those they have
placed over them, without any authoiryt to do so.

TahirihStarr*

unread,

Aug 25, 2004, 10:40:53 PM8/25/04

to

bn...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael McKenny) wrote in message news:<cggve8$cdd$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...

Happy Days Michael!

In addressing your two passages on 'fundamentalism' I think we have
much to rejoice about here.

> It is even more astonishing that anyone could imagine this one man, or
> the nine who are reinterpreting him, could have nothing new to say, only
> the old ill considered fundamentalism Baha'u'llah came to heal.

Fundamentalism is intolerant, exclusivist, narrow

> and word picking literalist attempting to place power in the hands of
> individual clerics and a legalistic faction whose interpretation of
> spiritual texts would chain up the mercy, compassion and power of God
> and force humans to commit against each other deeds forbidden by each holy
> soul. That is what is condemned and what in this new day is the malady
> requiring the remedy of spirituality.

Why do I say we have much to rejoice about here when we and others
have been held hostage and victimized by the 'fundamentalism' that has
taken hold in the Baha'i Faith?

First of all Baha'u'llah (meaning The Maid of Heaven, the Creative
Word)did send healing messages to humankind, yet we see where the
followers in the bf operating behind the scenes have rejected those
advices. So why am I rejoicing?

I am rejoicing because praise be God/ess we have this newsgroup where
the Susan's and the like have openly demonstrated how this deadening
'fundamentalism' operates. The very fact that it is out in the open
for all to see is a protection to the true hearts who didn't know what
was behind the secene pulling the strings.

Now that their machinations of "intolerant, exclusivist, narrow and

word picking literalist attempting to place power in the hands of
individual clerics and a legalistic faction whose interpretation of
spiritual texts would chain up the mercy, compassion and power of God
and force humans to commit against each other deeds forbidden by each

holy soul", have been made public those with integrity have an
opportunity to turn aside from the 'devils in disguise' and to return
to the Maid of Heaven's healing balm.

Rejoice! Rejoice! For if we did not have those dark forces how would
we measure the intenisty of the 'Light'?

Rejoice! Rejoice! For we have people like your 'good' self who can
show the true contrast as the last pangs of the depraved wax before
us.

"But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they
hear.
Truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous men longed to see
what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did
not hear it.Mathew 13: 16-17"

But alas Michael! When the healing balm of 'love' enters the
contrusted house of illusion and illrepute it is life threatening to
the rigid fundamentalism building blocks they have used and they react
with fierce forceful flames in the last efforts to preserve their
false realities, knowing the walls will soon be folding to a higher
state of being. Remember the Maid of Heaven found this lot to be
'insinsere'.

Love bomb them, for it is indeed a process to behold, ever hastening
the folding up of a corrupt system so that the Light in this Day
becomes so much more sacred. Maybe we should ask all the Light Workers
to pray for them so the folding up process can be advanced, and
humanity move on to a more enlightened civilization!

PS - I like your metaphors, especially about Dr Who - and got a
chuckle - for humor is the foam on the wave of life.

Tahirih-Qurratu'l-Ayn*

TahirihStarr*

unread,

Aug 26, 2004, 1:09:35 AM8/26/04

to

"Ian: mult...@aros.net" <mult...@aros.net> wrote in message news:<p75qi09od7flpfd79...@4ax.com>...

> They still blindly adhere to the interpretations of those they have
> placed over them, without any authoiryt to do so.

I thought humanity as a whole was emerging out of pueberty and was
supposed to take 'responsibility' for themselves. Even, by law, once a
person hits twenty-one years of age they are considered to be
responsible adults and their parents can no longer be considered
legally responsible for their acts and thinking. Are these then people
who are in denial that they are past twenty-one and they are seeking
and needing a single man to tell them how to read and think, and feel.
The whole premise is insane and devoid of conscious awareness. Even
animals are more free to interact with divine waftings. Seems like the
scholars have gotten themselves into a quagmire of antiquated shari'a
worse than that of old time Quranic superstitions and hadiths.

TahirihQurratu'l-Ayn*

Robert Clifton

unread,

Aug 26, 2004, 10:10:03 AM8/26/04

to

> I thought humanity as a whole was emerging out of pueberty and was
> supposed to take 'responsibility' for themselves. Even, by law, once a
> person hits twenty-one years of age they are considered to be
> responsible adults and their parents can no longer be considered
> legally responsible for their acts and thinking. Are these then people
> who are in denial that they are past twenty-one and they are seeking
> and needing a single man to tell them how to read and think, and feel.
> The whole premise is insane and devoid of conscious awareness. Even
> animals are more free to interact with divine waftings. Seems like the
> scholars have gotten themselves into a quagmire of antiquated shari'a
> worse than that of old time Quranic superstitions and hadiths.
>
> TahirihQurratu'l-Ayn*

Absolutely correct.
We individually have total autonomy, some call it free will, some call
it maturity, some call it individual responsibility.
In exercising our responsibility we have no choice but to rely upon
the information available to us if we are to know the truth. We can
make things up to our hearts content but then we are living in a
fantasy world.
The information brought to us by Baha'u'llah is the revealed writings
and to keep those writings from becoming fantasy world dreaming there
has been established a living guardian at the head of a universal
house of justice.
The guardian is to explain those things of the writings which we may
not be able to figure out. The house is to keep the word of God
contemporary. Niether of them individually or together have any power
to usurp our individual responsibility. They are strictly advisory to
us individuals in our private search for the truth of God. Neither can
tell us what to believe or what not to believe what to do or what not
to do.
When they speak they are authorized to speak for God. We are
authorized to tell them to shove it where the sun don't shine. The
repercussions of such would be in the next plane of existance and not
in any manner by withholding voting rights, shunning, or booting out.
They have no power! Only authority.
God gave us free will and so far He has not recalled it. I will not
cede it to a group of nine men on a hill, nor an individual man down
under, nor both together, nor to a terrorist with a gun to my head.
Until they get together, as designed, I will take anything either
produces with a huge dose of salt. One is mutilated the other hampered
and I don't want faulty information.

OBBB

Susan Maneck

unread,

Aug 26, 2004, 3:25:14 PM8/26/04

to

Dear John,

I'll have to double check, but I'm thinking the original in the passage in
question is actually alam which literally means world, not age.

warmest, Susan

TahirihStarr*

unread,

Aug 26, 2004, 7:36:24 PM8/26/04

to

cli...@eudoramail.com (Robert Clifton) wrote in message news:<e3f87f43.04082...@posting.google.com>...

> > I thought humanity as a whole was emerging out of pueberty and was
> > supposed to take 'responsibility' for themselves. Even, by law, once a
> > person hits twenty-one years of age they are considered to be
> > responsible adults and their parents can no longer be considered
> > legally responsible for their acts and thinking. Are these then people
> > who are in denial that they are past twenty-one and they are seeking
> > and needing a single man to tell them how to read and think, and feel.
> > The whole premise is insane and devoid of conscious awareness. Even
> > animals are more free to interact with divine waftings. Seems like the
> > scholars have gotten themselves into a quagmire of antiquated shari'a
> > worse than that of old time Quranic superstitions and hadiths.
> >
> > TahirihQurratu'l-Ayn*
>
> Absolutely correct.
> We individually have total autonomy, some call it free will, some call
> it maturity, some call it individual responsibility.
> In exercising our responsibility we have no choice but to rely upon
> the information available to us if we are to know the truth. We can
> make things up to our hearts content but then we are living in a
> fantasy world.
> The information brought to us by Baha'u'llah is the revealed writings
> and to keep those writings from becoming fantasy

This concept is a fantasy within itself. If you picked up anything
from the Writings it should be to know that each Writing has
'infinite' grades and levels of meaning - and YOU can experience that
knowledge yourself.

world dreaming there
> has been established a living guardian at the head of a universal
> house of justice.
> The guardian is to explain those things of the writings which we may
> not be able to figure out.

You don't have to have them figured out - you have only to attract the
Divine Intelligence to your own heart --- why limit that intelligence
from the higher realm by trying to experience it 'second hand'?

The house is to keep the word of God
> contemporary.

Certainly you can see how limiting that has and can be? Especially
when the instrument you are depending upon has its own human
limitations.

Niether of them individually or together have any power
> to usurp our individual responsibility. They are strictly advisory to
> us individuals in our private search for the truth of God. Neither can
> tell us what to believe or what not to believe what to do or what not
> to do.
> When they speak they are authorized to speak for God.

Look within and you will see Me standing there, Mighty, Powerful, and
Self-subsisting. You are God.

We are
> authorized to tell them to shove it where the sun don't shine. The
> repercussions of such would be in the next plane of existance and not
> in any manner by withholding voting rights, shunning, or booting out.
> They have no power! Only authority.
> God gave us free will and so far He has not recalled it. I will not
> cede it to a group of nine men on a hill, nor an individual man down
> under, nor both together, nor to a terrorist with a gun to my head.
> Until they get together, as designed, I will take anything either
> produces with a huge dose of salt. One is mutilated the other hampered
> and I don't want faulty information.
>
> OBBB

OBBB - Words and information without your own experience of it has no
real meaning - they can only be doorways to preparing you for the
experience. This is scientifically known as well.

TahirihQurratu'l-Ayn*