Will and Testament - cannot be abrogated
Jeffrey
as if they were revealed by Baha'u'llah Himself. - Jeffrey
Shoghi Effendi:
"The creative energies released by the Law of Bahá'u'lláh, permeating and
evolving within the mind of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, have, by their very impact and
close interaction, given birth to an Instrument which may be viewed as the
Charter of the New World Order which is at once the glory and the promise of
this most great Dispensation. The Will may thus be acclaimed as the
inevitable offspring resulting from that mystic intercourse between Him Who
communicated the generating influence of His divine Purpose and the One Who
was its vehicle and chosen recipient. Being the Child of the Covenant -- the
Heir of both the Originator and the Interpreter of the Law of God -- the
Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá can no more be divorced from Him Who
supplied the original and motivating impulse than from the One Who
ultimately conceived it. Bahá'u'lláh's inscrutable purpose, we must ever
bear in mind, has been so thoroughly infused into the conduct of
'Abdu'l-Bahá, and their motives have been so closely wedded together, that
the mere attempt to dissociate the teachings of the former from any system
which the ideal Exemplar of those same teachings has established would
amount to a repudiation of one of the most sacred and basic truths of the
Faith."
Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 144
Randy Burns
"Jeffrey" <con...@truebahai.com> wrote in message
news:dQenb.1125$7M2....@news.uswest.net...
> The Will and Testament cannot be abrogated. Its provisions are as binding
> as if they were revealed by Baha'u'llah Himself.
Sure this is true but ask yourself this, the authority accorded to the
Guardian in the W&T is still there and will always be there but where does
it say that there will always be a single living Guardian to hold the
authority? The fact that Baha'u'llah foresaw the possibility of his line
dieing off meant that there was no guarantee of a continuing line of
Guardians per se.
As I understand it, Mason Remey claimed to be adopted by Abdu'l-Baha and
thus eligible to serve as Guardian, but that is difficult for most people to
accept.
Still power abhors a vacuum and since the authority has granted power to the
sphere of the Guardian, someone or something is going to wield that power.
In your case, it is a living Guardian, and in the case of the Haifan Baha'is
it is a vanguard group of Baha'is ( a process that I personally oppose).
>"Without such an institution [the Guardianship] the integrity of the Faith
>would be imperiled, and the stability of the entire fabric would be gravely
>endangered. Its prestige would suffer, the means required to enable it to
>take a long, an uninterrupted view over a series of generations would be
>completely lacking, and the necessary guidance to define the sphere of the
>legislative action of its elected representatives would be totally
>withdrawn." Shoghi Effendi, World Order of Baha'u'llah, p 148
Again it is obvious that this statement is correct, but for me the answer
lies in trying to create a working Institution. In your case you have to
ask yourself, is the Guardian you have doing a good job, is he inspiring, is
he capable? while in my case I have to ask is there a proper Institution, or
is the power of the Guardian being used by people without the visible
authority?
It seems to me that if you can find a great and inspiring Guardian that you
should stick with him and that he will be successful, but the proof is in
the pudding.
Dave dm...@ix.netcom.com says:
>Within any organization there is an inner cadre that provides the
>direction. Normally, it is a group which has some sort of written
>charter as the basis for their power. In the present sans-guardian
>Haifa organization, they proclaim to have the power of the Will and
>Testament behind them, but they have had to remove the essence of that
>Holy Document in order to conform to its principles. Their version is
>no longer the document provided by 'Abdu-l'Baha.
I don't see it quite that way. I don't think the essence has been removed,
the twin pillars still effect power, however those using the power are not
properly authorized and when you do not have proper authorization it is
bound to have an impact, you are bound to have confusion. The Haifan's need
to create an authorized authority to wield the power of the Guardianship
Institution.
> If one but reviews the writings of the the Three Central Figures of
> the Faith, it is quite clear that God intended a leadership path for
> this age we live in, encompassing a responsibility from mankind to
> understand for himself. And the copious writings of the first
> guardian, Shoghi Effendi, outlined the direction for establishing
> God's intended Infallible leadership path.
Yes, but the intended infallible leadership path doesn't necessarily mean a
single individual, it means that we have to have twin pillars, that's how I
see it now. It's the twin pillars that guarantees infallibility in the
limited sense that is meant, while if one of the pillars is out of whack
then the infallibility even in its limited sense begins to fail.
>Why settle for anything
> less? God's Will will eventually be done, so why do not the believers
> just read the directions that Shoghi left for us, and accept God's
> intended plan?
To most of us the idea that Shoghi Effendi appointed Mason Remey as the
second Guardian is not that clear, but as you have pointed out, the fact
that a twin set of institutions is required is or should be clear to all.
>I suppose they don't because it is so much easier to
> just follow the self-appointed ones in Haifa, all the while ignoring
> their own responsibility, in this age of the maturity of mankind, for
> independent investigation of truth.
As long as Baha'u'llah directed the election of the UHJ, most Baha'is are
going to see their primary allegiance to that and to Baha'u'llah and not to
a living Guardian.
Cheers, Randy
Jeffrey
"Without such an institution [the Guardianship] the integrity of the Faith
would be imperiled, and the stability of the entire fabric would be gravely
endangered. Its prestige would suffer, the means required to enable it to
take a long, an uninterrupted view over a series of generations would be
completely lacking, and the necessary guidance to define the sphere of the
legislative action of its elected representatives would be totally
withdrawn."
Shoghi Effendi, World Order of Baha'u'llah, p 148
How is a dead Guardian going to take an uninteerrupted view over a series of
generations, or give guidance to the legislative actions, etc. Why would we
need a dead Guardian? Wouldn't it be enough to have the writings of the
Founders?
Jeffrey
"Randy Burns" <randy....@gte.net> wrote in message
news:xTnnb.11266$%e3....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
Randy Burns
> Here is where it says the Guardian has to be living:
>
> "Without such an institution [the Guardianship] the integrity of the Faith
> would be imperiled, and the stability of the entire fabric would be
gravely
> endangered. Its prestige would suffer, the means required to enable it to
> take a long, an uninterrupted view over a series of generations would be
> completely lacking, and the necessary guidance to define the sphere of the
> legislative action of its elected representatives would be totally
> withdrawn."
>
> Shoghi Effendi, World Order of Baha'u'llah, p 148
It seems to me that what is being said here is that the "institution" must
be an ongoing one. Personally I don't buy the idea that the dead Guardian's
writings can act effectively as an ongoing institutional force, so there I
am in agreement with you. However I don't think that we have to have a
single person as the Guardian, I think we can have an Institution which
continues the Guardianship in institutional form and thus can carry out the
duties of the Guardianship because indeed this institution consist of living
people, however it does lack an actual person acting as Guardian--it is just
an institition, like a court of jurors or judges.
Your quote above does not say that the institution has to consist of a
single person.
> How is a dead Guardian going to take an uninteerrupted view over a series
of
> generations, or give guidance to the legislative actions, etc. Why would
we
> need a dead Guardian? Wouldn't it be enough to have the writings of the
> Founders?
You are right, a dead Guardian's writings cannot do that. Indeed why not
just use the writings of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha, both did a better job
of expressing themselves then Shoghi Effendi did.
Cheers, Randy
Jeffrey
intended that, He would have provided for that.
The context of the language in the Will and Testament is clear that the
Guardian was to be a single living person. People can misinterpret,
stretch, and play games all they want, but it is intellectually dishonest to
try to justify conduct that deviates from the clear Text by tortured
reasoning and logic.
Jeffrey
"Randy Burns" <randy....@gte.net> wrote in message
news:4Xwnb.192$Q9....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Randy Burns
> It is not up to you or I to create a Guardianship committee. If God had
> intended that, He would have provided for that.
>
> The context of the language in the Will and Testament is clear that the
> Guardian was to be a single living person. People can misinterpret,
> stretch, and play games all they want, but it is intellectually dishonest
to
> try to justify conduct that deviates from the clear Text by tortured
> reasoning and logic.
Yes I agree that the W&T is pretty clear on this, but Shoghi Effendi's
writings are less clear. What would have happened if Shoghi Effendi had
died en route to Haifa in 1921? He arrived ill and the actual funeral of
Abdu'l-Baha was delayed for a week or so in order to allow Shoghi to
recover. What would have happened if he had died instead of recovering?
There was no process in place for the naming of another Guardian but there
were living relatives, even cousins of Shoghi, who were alive at that time
and presumably would have been eligible to serve, yet none of them would
have been named to suceed him. Would a new Guardian have been named or
would the UHJ have been elected instead with no Guardian?
The point of saying this is that the W&T wasn't created to allow for all
eventualities, but Shoghi Effendi's writings covered or allowed for more
eventualities than the W&T. Thus when Shoghi Effendi wrote that the
institution of the Guardianship must forever be a part of the Faith, I'm not
sure that means that a living Guardian must exist.
Cheers, Randy
Jeffrey
eventualities.
However, I believe the Faith is divinely guided. I do not believe the
Guardian will suddenly die without appointing his successor.
This boils down to one's faith. If the Cause is under the protection of
God, it will not be thwarted.
I submit to you that if Shoghi Effendi had died without appointing his
successor, it would have proved that the Baha'i Faith is not true-- that it
is a false religion. I could not come to any other conclusion. Because
either the Will and Testament is true or it is not true. If it is not true,
we are all just wasting our time. If it is true, then we must follow and
accept it in its entirety.
Jeffrey
"Randy Burns" <randy....@gte.net> wrote in message
news:rwDnb.15650$%e3....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
> I submit to you that if Shoghi Effendi had died without appointing his
> successor, it would have proved that the Baha'i Faith is not true-- that
it
> is a false religion. I could not come to any other conclusion. Because
> either the Will and Testament is true or it is not true. If it is not
true,
> we are all just wasting our time. If it is true, then we must follow and
> accept it in its entirety.
If all the BF consists of is a Guardian and his doings, then it is indeed of
the false variety.
Susan Maneck
>As I understand it, Mason Remey claimed to be adopted by Abdu'l-Baha and
>thus eligible to serve as Guardian, but that is difficult for most people to
>accept.
Dear Randy,
I think the BUPC believes this but not the Orthodox Baha'is. Frank got mad at
me once for presenting this as a Remeyite idea. My guess is that Mason Remey
must have said after Joel broke away.
>The fact that Baha'u'llah foresaw the possibility of his line
>dieing off meant that there was no guarantee of a continuing line of
>Guardians per se.
Exactly. The same argument that Remeyites are making against the W&T could just
as easily be made against the Kitab-i Ahd. That Muhammad Ali *had* to succeed
Abdu'l-Baha because the Kitab-i Ahd can't be abrogated in this dispensation. Of
course, neither text was abrogated, but shit happens. That's all that bada
means. It isn't something that Manifestations, Guardians or Hands 'declare'
under most circumstances.
> or
>is the power of the Guardian being used by people without the visible
>authority?
Ahh, here we go again. The secret cabal.
>It's the twin pillars that guarantees infallibility
Infallibility and the 'twin pillars' are completely different issues.
warmest, Susan
http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st
mult...@aros.net
That is all it is a guess!! Actually I think you will find that the
idea of the Sonship of Mason is carried mostly by Leland Jensen to
prove Leland somehow was fromt eh David Line.
>
>I think the BUPC believes this but not the Orthodox Baha'is. Frank got mad at
>me once for presenting this as a Remeyite idea. My guess is that Mason Remey
>must have said after Joel broke away.
>
>
>
Randy Burns
> You make a good point-- the Will and Testament does not provide for all
> eventualities.
>
> However, I believe the Faith is divinely guided. I do not believe the
> Guardian will suddenly die without appointing his successor.
If you make this assumption then certain things result, however I have
reasons not to make this assumption. Real understanding of the Baha'i
writings does not rest upon making assumptions beforehand.
> This boils down to one's faith. If the Cause is under the protection of
> God, it will not be thwarted.
I agree, but that could mean so many different things that it is nearly
useless. What you have said really is no different than what the marxist
says when he talks about Historical Materialism.
> I submit to you that if Shoghi Effendi had died without appointing his
> successor, it would have proved that the Baha'i Faith is not true-- that
it
> is a false religion. I could not come to any other conclusion. Because
> either the Will and Testament is true or it is not true. If it is not
true,
> we are all just wasting our time. If it is true, then we must follow and
> accept it in its entirety.
Such an attitude is too demanding of meaning. You cannot either tell God
what to do or the writings what they should mean. God does whatever It
wants and the meanings in the writings can never be exhausted. The truth of
Baha'i is not proven by what happens in the material world but by what
happens in the human heart.
Cheers, Randy
Susan Maneck
>If you make this assumption then certain things result, however I have
>reasons not to make this assumption. Real understanding of the Baha'i
>writings does not rest upon making assumptions beforehand.
Good point. It is bad scholarship to assume that because something supposedly
shouldn't have happened, it therefore didn't. Rather, we have to look at what
is.
Randy Burns
"Susan Maneck " <sma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031029094818...@mb-m01.aol.com...
> >
>
> Ahh, here we go again. The secret cabal.
Not a secret cabal but rather a cadre. This "cadre is a distinct elite, the
members of which are recognizable by no title; who may or may not be in
positions of organizational leadership."
"The important criterion is acceptance of discipline and directives. The
cadre constitute a distinct body within the Baha'i Faith. It is the cadre
which has assumed the role of the Guardian. It is the vanguard of the New
Race of Man. The cadre is not the formal leadership of the Baha'i Faith.
Most of the formal leaders of the Faith are members of the cadre, but not
necessarily all. "
"The question can be asked: if the cadre has no official existence, how can
it be identified and what is the source of its being? Members of the cadre
are members of the cadre when they are recognized as such by their equals
and superiors in the cadre. They become members of the cadre and achieve
their status within the cadre by the decision of their superiors in the
cadre; and the status of the superiors depends upon their superiors."
Source: The Moulding of Baha'is : The Training of the Baha'i Cadre.
Cheers, Randy
mult...@aros.net
Testament is paert of the Writigns, and find that somethig it says
must be in order for the Administration fo the Faith to be whole and
correct does nto happen, and what is is not what is required,
Ok I got it, the Will and Testament is not infallibel, and not part of
the Writigns, and if it is part ofthe Writings, then the Writigns
themselves are not infallible.
Great Susan this helped a lot!