Invitation on the Universal House of Justice
Heather Carr-Rowe
From the quote of Shoghi's which follows this post it is quite apparent
that he was very cognisant of the fact that the apparatus of the Baha'i
Administrative Order in many outward ways is ' but a replica ' of former
religious institutions.
As he so astutely points out the very success of the Faith depends on how
the Baha'i Administrative Order avails Itself, that the establishment of
God's kingdom on earth depends on ' the answers given to these challenging
questions'.
The reason I am referring to these insights of Shoghi's is to open a
dialogue with ' those whose priceless privilege is to guard over, administer
the affairs, and advance the interests of these Baha' institutions' .
This is my invitation to Them to openly participate in consultation on this
critical matter which concerns the future success of the Cause.
Shoghi saw the twin institutions of the Guardianship and The Universal
House of Justice as ' the inseparable institutions of the Guardianship and
of the Universal House of Justice'
(Shoghi Effendi, Citadel of Faith, p. 76)
As well he saw that there would be occasions in which the Guardian would be
required to insist upon a reconsideration by The Universal House of Justice
if he found that any of Their enactments conflicted with the meaning and
spirit of Baha'u'llah's revealed utterances :
[the Guardian] ... is bound to insist upon a reconsideration by
them [the members of the UHJ] of any enactment he
conscientiously believes to conflict with the meaning and to
depart from the spirit of Baha'u'llah's revealed utterances.
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 150)
As it was God's Will that these 'inseparable institutions' be separated,
this critical function that was to be the responsibility of an on going
hereditary Guardianship remains unfulfilled. Who is to speak up when ' any
enactments ... conflict with the meaning and to depart from the spirit of
Baha'u'llah's revealed utterances.'? Who is to give voice to what cries out
from their heart of hearts?
That I have taken apon myself this task in no way is an assertion or claim
on my part that I am a Guardian. I recognise only the 'twin Guardians' of
Baha'u'llah's, 'justice and equity' as being in this day the true Guardians
of the Cause. I claim no special station whatsoever, I am simply one of the
one hundred billion people to have graced and disgraced this earth.
It is my heart felt conclusion, based on the many years that I have been
Baha'i, the many years that I have studied and contemplated the Writings
that the enactments of the Universal House of Justice against It's
coreligionists Alison Marshall and Michael McKenny "conflict with the
meaning" and " depart from the spirit of Baha'u'llah's revealed utterances
".
I hereby invite The Universal House of Justice to consult here on this
matter, in the manner that Baha'u'llah has taught us to consult, so that the
truth of these matters may be known to all. So that we truly may show that
we regard one another ' as one soul ' and that the very purpose for the
Cause may be fulfilled :
" so that the seal bearing the words "The Kingdom shall be God's" may be
stamped on every heart, and the light of Divine bounty, of grace, and mercy
may envelop all mankind. "
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 260)
There is only us, we are them, as one soul.
Yours Larry
"For those whose priceless privilege is to guard over, administer the
affairs, and advance the interests of these Bahá'í institutions will have,
sooner or later, to face this searching question: "Where and how does this
Order established by Bahá'u'lláh, which to outward seeming is but a replica
of the institutions established in Christianity and Islam, differ from them?
Are not the twin institutions of the House of Justice and of the
Guardianship, the institution of the Hands of the Cause of God, the
institution of the national and local Assemblies, the institution of the
Mashriqu'l-Adhkar, but different names for the institutions of the Papacy
and the Caliphate, with all their attending ecclesiastical orders which the
Christians and Moslems uphold and advocate? What can possibly be the agency
that can safeguard these Bahá'í institutions, so strikingly resemblant, in
some of their features, to those which have been reared by the Fathers of
the Church and the Apostles of Muhammad, from witnessing the deterioration
in character, the breach of unity, and the extinction of influence, which
have befallen all organized religious hierarchies? Why should they not
eventually suffer the self-same fate that has overtaken the institutions
which the successors of Christ and Muhammad have reared?"
Upon the answer given to these challenging questions will, in a great
measure, depend the success of the efforts which believers in every land are
now exerting for the establishment of God's kingdom upon the earth. Few will
fail to recognize that the Spirit breathed by Bahá'u'lláh upon the world,
and which is manifesting itself with varying degrees of intensity through
the efforts consciously displayed by His avowed supporters and indirectly
through certain humanitarian organizations, can never permeate and exercise
an abiding influence upon mankind unless and until it incarnates itself in a
visible Order, which would bear His name, wholly identify itself with His
principles, and function in conformity with His laws. That Bahá'u'lláh in
His Book of Aqdas, and later 'Abdu'l-Bahá in His Will -- a document which
confirms, supplements, and correlates the provisions of the Aqdas -- have
set forth in their entirety those essential elements for the constitution of
the world Bahá'í Commonwealth, no one who has read them will deny. According
to these divinely-ordained administrative principles, the Dispensation of
Bahá'u'lláh -- the Ark of human salvation -- must needs be modeled. From
them, all future blessings must flow, and upon them its inviolable authority
must ultimately rest.
For Bahá'u'lláh, we should readily recognize, has not only imbued mankind
with a new and regenerating Spirit. He has not merely enunciated certain
universal principles, or propounded a particular philosophy, however potent,
sound and universal these may be. In addition to these He, as well as
'Abdu'l-Bahá after Him, has, unlike the Dispensations of the past, clearly
and specifically laid down a set of Laws, established definite institutions,
and provided for the essentials of a Divine Economy. These are destined to
be a pattern for future society, a supreme instrument for the establishment
of the Most Great Peace, and the one agency for the unification of the
world, and the proclamation of the reign of righteousness and justice upon
the earth. Not only have they revealed all the directions required for the
practical realization of those ideals which the Prophets of God have
visualized, and which from time immemorial have inflamed the imagination of
seers and poets in every age. They have also, in unequivocal and emphatic
language, appointed those twin institutions of the House of Justice and of
the Guardianship as their chosen Successors, destined to apply the
principles, promulgate the laws, protect the institutions, adapt loyally and
intelligently the Faith to the requirements of progressive society, and
consummate the incorruptible inheritance which the Founders of the Faith
have bequeathed to the world."
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 18)
Randy Burns
"Heather Carr-Rowe" <ro...@northwestel.net> wrote in message
news:JmtUd.5671$Vf6.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> As it was God's Will that these 'inseparable institutions' be separated,
> this critical function that was to be the responsibility of an on going
> hereditary Guardianship remains unfulfilled. Who is to speak up when ' any
> enactments ... conflict with the meaning and to depart from the spirit of
> Baha'u'llah's revealed utterances.'? Who is to give voice to what cries
out
> from their heart of hearts?
Some time ago I suggested right here on TRB that the Institution of the
Guardian needed to be resurrected without an actual Guardian but instead as
an institutional body charged with maintaining the duties of the Guardian in
a noninfallible way. The UHJ certainly has the power to establish such a
body, which could either be constituted as a Court or even a Review Board of
some kind. Personally I think this would be a great help to the faith at
this juncture.
> That I have taken apon myself this task in no way is an assertion or
claim
> on my part that I am a Guardian. I recognise only the 'twin Guardians' of
> Baha'u'llah's, 'justice and equity' as being in this day the true
Guardians
> of the Cause. I claim no special station whatsoever, I am simply one of
the
> one hundred billion people to have graced and disgraced this earth.
Currently the station of the Guardian is being exercised by the Cadre Baha'i
as a group. This group has derogated to itself all the rights and
perquisites of the Guardianship without any duly authorized body (such as
the UHJ) acting to create it or authorize it, therefore it is an illict
group which has no right to exist within the Faith.
> It is my heart felt conclusion, based on the many years that I have been
> Baha'i, the many years that I have studied and contemplated the Writings
> that the enactments of the Universal House of Justice against It's
> coreligionists Alison Marshall and Michael McKenny "conflict with the
> meaning" and " depart from the spirit of Baha'u'llah's revealed
utterances".
Without established due process and without an institution of the
Guardianship there is no current method of appealing such decision save that
of appealing directly to the Cadre--the final arbiter of all decisions
currently made in the Faith. The Cadre's price for appeal is already well
know. There is nothing anyone can do about that save the UHJ itself, the
only Center of the Faith that we currently have that is indisputably genuine
in nature.
> I hereby invite The Universal House of Justice to consult here on this
> matter, in the manner that Baha'u'llah has taught us to consult, so that
the
> truth of these matters may be known to all.
The House can do nothing that the Cadre has not already approved in advance.
>So that we truly may show that
> we regard one another ' as one soul ' and that the very purpose for the
> Cause may be fulfilled :
>
> " so that the seal bearing the words "The Kingdom shall be God's" may be
> stamped on every heart, and the light of Divine bounty, of grace, and
mercy
> may envelop all mankind. "
>
> (Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 260)
>
> There is only us, we are them, as one soul.
Appeal to the House is and will be fruitless until the House acts to create
a legitimate Institution of the Guardianship which can root out the Cadre
organization from the bowels of the Faith.
Good luck in your quest,
Randy
Heather Carr-Rowe
Just to clarify my motive for issuing my invitation to the Universal House
of Justice to consult on these weighty, and timely issues.
My motive is simply as Shoghi outlines in the quote below, that we all be
enabled to : " reconcile the principles of mercy and justice, of freedom and
submission, of the sanctity of the right of the individual and of
self-surrender, of vigilance, discretion and prudence on the one hand, and
fellowship, candor, and courage on the other." So that we can move forward
together instead of apart, so that we can exemplify Baha'u'llah's Teaching,
on the oneness of humanity, that we regard one another ' as one soul '
instead of exemplifying Their antithesis.
If The Universal House of Justice can, through open and honest
consultation, prove that I am in error in my conviction that Their treatment
of Alison Marshall, and Michael McKenny conflicts with the meaning and
departs from the spirit of Baha'u'llah's revealed utterances, I will humbly
apologize for any misunderstanding and acknowledge Their wisdom.
If I should convince The Universal House of Justice that I am not mistaken
They would be required to take the necessary steps to rectify Their error.
First They would need to notify the world community of Baha' that an error
in judgement on Their part has led to the unjust treatment of Their
coreligionist Alison Marshall and Michael McKenny, that They have undertaken
the necessary steps to undo the damage They have done to the community of
Baha' and have rescinded Their unjust decision.
I pray that the members of The Universal House of Justice have the courage
to consult in this open and honest manner, that God will enable Them to see
the wisdom of Shoghi's words that :
"the keynote of the Cause of God is not dictatorial authority but humble
fellowship, not arbitrary power, but the spirit of frank and loving
consultation."
If The Universal House of Justice fails to avail Itself of this opportunity
to put into action the very principles of Baha'u'llah on the importance of
consultation I know that God will forgive them Their refusal. I too will
forgive Them.
The mantle of the Cause will be carried regardless, we are as 'one soul' in
spite of each and every difference between us.
The Kingdom lies in this seeing of one another 'as one soul'. The Kingdom
has always been within, as Christ observed. May the people of Baha' be the
ones to exemplify this truth!
There is only us, we are them, as one soul.
Yours Larry
Let us also remember that at the very root of the Cause lies the principle
of the undoubted right of the individual to self-expression, his freedom to
declare his conscience and set forth his views. If certain instructions of
the Master are today particularly emphasized and scrupulously adhered to,
let us be sure that they are but provisional measures designed to guard and
protect the Cause in its present state of infancy and growth until the day
when this tender and precious plant shall have sufficiently grown to be able
to withstand the unwisdom of its friends and the attacks of its enemies.
Let us also bear in mind that the keynote of the Cause of God is not
dictatorial authority but humble fellowship, not arbitrary power, but the
spirit of frank and loving consultation. Nothing short of the spirit of a
true Bahá'í can hope to reconcile the principles of mercy and justice, of
freedom and submission, of the sanctity of the right of the individual and
of self-surrender, of vigilance, discretion and prudence on the one hand,
and fellowship, candor, and courage on the other.
(Shoghi Effendi, Baha'i Administration, p. 63)
sma...@jam.rr.com
>
> Just to clarify my motive for issuing my invitation to the Universal
House
> of Justice to consult on these weighty, and timely issues.
Larry,
If you want to issue an invitation to the House you have to write them
directly. They will not respond to internet postings.
Susan
cli...@eudoramail.com
sma...@jam.rr.com wrote:
"If you want to issue an invitation to the House you have to write them
directly. They will not respond to internet postings."
Susan:
I wrote to them directly with exactly this self same request long
before I was declared a covenant breaker by them and at the time a card
carrying BIGS. They did not respond. Why do you think they would
respond to Larry??
larry,
My request was used as part of the inquisition against me.
Robert
cli...@eudoramail.com
separated,"
Simply for starters God did not tell me that it was his will to
separate the twin pillars. To the contrary. When did he tell you this?
"The UHJ certainly has the power to establish such a
body,..."
the UHJ has only the power to establish what ever committees and
functions it wants within it's own club house. Their club house is
not the entire Baha'i world.
"only Center of the Faith that we currently have that is indisputably
genuine in nature."
There are many Baha'is who disupute this genuine nature of the Haifan
UHJ. Me for one.
We need to talk.
The Guardian has been trying for years to get the Haifans on the hill
to reconsider their decision. They ignore him.
We need to talk.
Robert
Heather Carr-Rowe
Sorry I guess I should amend that to " God's Will according to the Haifan
Baha'i Faith " doesn't read the same though, lol.
Yours Larry
Heather Carr-Rowe
' If you want to issue an invitation to the House you have to write them
directly. They will not respond to internet postings.'
Good suggestion Susan I'll Cc them.
Yours Larry
Finnegan's Wake
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1109600150....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Or much else for that matter ... no replies to Alison, me and who knows who
else!
Good idea Larry! No response to this just shows the utter disdain the Triple
Trinity has for the underlings!
Finnegan's Wake
<cli...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:1109604025....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Amendment to my last post ... "Alison, wee Rab, me and who knows who else!"
truth...@yahoo.co.uk
m...@privacy.net wrote on 28/2/05 07:43 pm:
>
> Good idea Larry! No response to this just shows the utter disdain the
Triple
> Trinity has for the underlings!
Here Finnegan, this Bahai creed of the "Triple Trinity", nine persons
in one conferred infallibility is a cracker. Was it man made, or did
God change his mind (bada)?
Trueseeker
Finnegan's Wake
<truth...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1109621887....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
As Randy suggested on another thread, I'm just honing my manifestation
skills ... with occasional bursts of inspiration.
>
> Trueseeker
>
cli...@eudoramail.com
Here is the proposal
http://www.angelfire.com/mt/mendedheart/consult.html
Anyone game?
Robert
sma...@jam.rr.com
> Good suggestion Susan I'll Cc them.
Larry,
They will not answer a cc either. Their policy is to not answer any
communication which has been posted on the internet. They consider that
a form of lobbying. You'd have to write them a different letter and
*not* post it on the internet if you expect a response.
Susan
Steve Marshall
>If you want to issue an invitation to the House you have to write them
>directly. They will not respond to internet postings.
And even then it doesn't respond, aside from acknowledging the receipt
of your letter, as Alison has found.
sma...@jam.rr.com
receipt
> of your letter, as Alison has found.
Alison didn't ask a question. There was nothing to respond to.
Finnegan's Wake
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1109628304.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
And Larry ... don't lose any sleep waiting for a response ... Alison didn't
get one ... and neither did I!
>
> Susan
>
Finnegan's Wake
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1109628578.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
"But what have you gained by forcing me out of the community? If you
represent Baha’u’llah, why would you exile one of his ardent lovers?"
That makes two questions, Susie.
"However, for the sake of justice and the Cause, and for the sake of
God and yourselves, you might like to consider reviewing your
decision."
Sorry! There was nothing to respond to!
cli...@eudoramail.com
And they never responded to mine. It was full of questions. I hadn't
even bought a computer yet.
BTW what is the difference between making a proposal and lobbying?
What is wrong with lobbying??
What was that line about taking into their confidence?
Susan sometimes I wonder about you.
Robert
Finnegan's Wake
<cli...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:1109638306.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Just "sometimes"!?!?!
What a strange fellow you are!
>
>
> Robert
>
Finnegan's Wake
<cli...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:1109627606.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
This is where the fighting is! Anybody who cuts and runs is a big sissy!
>
> Robert
>
sma...@jam.rr.com
> "But what have you gained by forcing me out of the community? If you
> represent Baha'u'llah, why would you exile one of his ardent
lovers?"
Those are rhetorical questions not real ones.
>
> "However, for the sake of justice and the Cause, and for the sake of
> God and yourselves, you might like to consider reviewing your
> decision."
That's a suggestion, not a question.
Finnegan's Wake
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1109649482....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> > "But what have you gained by forcing me out of the community? If you
> > represent Baha'u'llah, why would you exile one of his ardent
> lovers?"
>
> Those are rhetorical questions not real ones.
They are questions; they are deserving of an answer.
Would you like me to draft an answer with which the Triple Trinity could
respond?
> >
> > "However, for the sake of justice and the Cause, and for the sake of
> > God and yourselves, you might like to consider reviewing your
> > decision."
>
> That's a suggestion, not a question.
Is it worthy of consideration? Does it not deserve a response? Shall I
draft one for them?
>
Steve Marshall
>> Alison didn't ask a question. There was nothing to respond to.
>
>"But what have you gained by forcing me out of the community? If you
>represent Baha’u’llah, why would you exile one of his ardent lovers?"
>
>That makes two questions, Susie.
Hi Mr. Wake,
I've become very sensitive to emotions and very intuitive of
situations. Perhaps its due to my long periods communing with the
beasts of the field (kind of like a St. Francis with needs). I reckon
Susan genuinely doesn't see anything to respond to. And no amount of
logic will shift her from that position. Perhaps we need to accept
that she simply can't see something in Alison's letter that others
have seen ...and leave it at that.
Mr Wake, I know that, deep down, you're a caring and sensitive chap --
a bit like that nice Mr. Ryder who used to post here, but is probably
caring full-time for his daughter -- so I'm confident that you'll
understand what I'm saying.
It's about recognising authentic relationships, I think, but since I
hang out with sheep, what would I know.
Anyway, I've said my piece (and managed to insert the obligatory
reference to THAT subject twice) so I'll end there.
ka kite
Steve
Steve Marshall
Finnegan's Wake
"Steve Marshall" <asm...@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:iqt721ps3853lfgad...@4ax.com...
>> I've become very sensitive to emotions and very intuitive of
> situations. Perhaps its due to my long periods communing with the
> beasts of the field (kind of like a St. Francis with needs). I reckon
> Susan genuinely doesn't see anything to respond to. And no amount of
> logic will shift her from that position. Perhaps we need to accept
> that she simply can't see something in Alison's letter that others
> have seen ...and leave it at that.
I live in perpetual hope that someday her brain will start to operate
normally. It is, I must admit, extremely unlikely. We must however
continue to point out the error of her ways as to discourage others from
accepting or following them.
> Mr Wake, I know that, deep down, you're a caring and sensitive chap --
> a bit like that nice Mr. Ryder who used to post here, but is probably
> caring full-time for his daughter -- so I'm confident that you'll
> understand what I'm saying.
Nr R is otherwise engaged at the moment in a matter not unrelated to that
rather interesting daughter of his - once free of that, I understand tht he
will return. Strictly between ourselves he's working on a new AABM (Anti
Auxiliary Board Member)weapons system. Obviously this news is not to be
communicated to any agent of the AO.
Mr. All Bad
Would "Flogging the Amickted" pertain to beating people who were adopted
into Irish families?
I'm sorry, but I was inspired to play transposition with "Mocking the
Afflicted". I'm a mocker of the downtrodden, thus
- Mr. All Bad
sma...@jam.rr.com
> > Those are rhetorical questions not real ones.
>
> They are questions; they are deserving of an answer.
Nope. They presume facts not in evidence, like whether or not Alison is
an 'ardent lover' of Baha'u'llah.
> > > "However, for the sake of justice and the Cause, and for the sake
of
> > > God and yourselves, you might like to consider reviewing your
> > > decision."
> >
> > That's a suggestion, not a question.
>
> Is it worthy of consideration?
Nope.
Does it not deserve a response? Shall I
> draft one for them?
Not as stated. If she sincerely requested readmittance into the Baha'i
community and was prepared to acknowledge the authority of the
Universal House of Justice, it would be another thing.
Finnegan's Wake
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1109721382.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Those are rhetorical questions not real ones.
> >
> > They are questions; they are deserving of an answer.
>
> Nope. They presume facts not in evidence, like whether or not Alison is
> an 'ardent lover' of Baha'u'llah.
They are questions. In response thereto one may query or seek clarification
of matters associated therewith.
> > > > "However, for the sake of justice and the Cause, and for the sake
> of
> > > > God and yourselves, you might like to consider reviewing your
> > > > decision."
> > >
> > > That's a suggestion, not a question.
> >
> > Is it worthy of consideration?
>
> Nope.
Good to know you are so set on keeping folks out of de faith! Nae wonder
that I'm smiling contentedly tonight!
> Does it not deserve a response? Shall I
> > draft one for them?
>
> Not as stated. If she sincerely requested readmittance into the Baha'i
> community and was prepared to acknowledge the authority of the
> Universal House of Justice, it would be another thing.
And what authority is that? Can you define the scope of it?
>
sma...@jam.rr.com
>
> They are questions.
The House has much better things to do than respond to rhetorical
questions which are aimed at making ones own point, not soliciting
information.
>
> And what authority is that? Can you define the scope of it?
Abdu'l-Baha did that for me:
"It is incumbent upon these members (of the Universal House of Justice)
to gather in a certain place and deliberate upon all problems which
have caused difference, questions that are obscure and matters that are
not expressly recorded in the Book. Whatsoever they decide has the same
effect as the Text itself."
cli...@eudoramail.com
So why do they insist on giving answers which are 'expressly recorded
in the book'?
Robert
Steve Marshall
>Not as stated. If she sincerely requested readmittance into the Baha'i
>community and was prepared to acknowledge the authority of the
>Universal House of Justice, it would be another thing.
Reality check, Susan: Writing to the House is an acknowledgement of
its authority.
What you appear to be talking about is some kind of idolatry whereby
Alison tells the House that it is propositionally inerrant.
sma...@jam.rr.com
> Reality check, Susan: Writing to the House is an acknowledgement of
> its authority.
Not when it is written in the tone of your wife's letter.
>
> What you appear to be talking about is some kind of idolatry whereby
> Alison tells the House that it is propositionally inerrant.
Nonsense. I don't believe in propositional inerrancy myself.
ausgep...@hotmail.com
It is not a replica of former religious institutions at all. The
amalgamation of the five forms of government as delineated by Aristotle
is devoid of the weaknesses these forms of government have had in the
past either singly in other combination (As Shoghi Effendi points out).
The Divine Genius of The Master has bequeathed to us an administrative
order that will lead mankind to a new Golden Age of Peace and
Prosperity for at least 1000 years. Although Shoghi Effendi tells us
that the Imans and Guardians are analagous in function, we have the
Will and Testament of Abdu'l Baha to cement the legitimacy of the
Guardians and circumvent this religion's decline through thwarting or
annihilating the interpretive function/presidency as was fate of Islam.
Not withstanding this, we have the current assault on the Guadianship
by the majority of avowed Believers. I suspect the intelligence of
this will be manifest to ALL the Believers in the not too distant
future. There is nothing new in this religion or religions of the past
of having the legitimate authority attacked or the Believers being
tested in this regard.
Michael
Heather Carr-Rowe
I'm simply quoting Shoghi : " Where and how does this Order established by
Bahá'u'lláh, which to outward seeming is but a REPLICA of the institutions
established in Christianity and Islam, differ from them?"
What can possibly be the agency that can safeguard these Bahá'í
institutions, so STRIKINGLY RESEMBLANT in some of their features, to those
which have been reared by the Fathers of the Church and the Apostles of
Muhammad,
They ARE outwardly " but a replica " they ARE " strikingly resemblant in
some of their features. "
What should distinguish them is that they're enactments should reflect and
not : "conflict with the meaning and to depart from the spirit of
Bahá'u'lláh's revealed utterances...."
(Compilations, The Compilation of Compilations vol. I, p. 337)
They have yet to show this capacity.
The test is theirs.
The only Guardians I recognised are Shoghi and Baha'u'llah's twin
Guardians:
"Justice and equity are twin Guardians that watch over men. From them are
revealed such blessed and perspicuous words as are the cause of the
well-being of the world and the protection of the nations."
(Baha'u'llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 12)
Yours Larry
For those whose priceless privilege is to guard over, administer the
affairs, and advance the interests of these Bahá'í institutions will have,
sooner or later, to face this searching question: "Where and how does this
Order established by Bahá'u'lláh, which to outward seeming is but a replica
of the institutions established in Christianity and Islam, differ from them?
Are not the twin institutions of the House of Justice and of the
Guardianship, the institution of the Hands of the Cause of God, the
institution of the national and local Assemblies, the institution of the
Mashriqu'l-Adhkar, but different names for the institutions of the Papacy
and the Caliphate, with all their attending ecclesiastical orders which the
Christians and Moslems uphold and advocate? What can possibly be the agency
that can safeguard these Bahá'í institutions, so strikingly resemblant, in
some of their features, to those which have been reared by the Fathers of
the Church and the Apostles of Muhammad, from witnessing the deterioration
in character, the breach of unity, and the extinction of influence, which
have befallen all organized religious hierarchies? Why should they not
eventually suffer the self-same fate that has 19 overtaken the
institutions which the successors of Christ and Muhammad have reared?"
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 18)
<ausgep...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109745734.7...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
cli...@eudoramail.com
Hello Larry,
What no one in any camp seems to see is that the designed
administrative order of Baha'u'llah does not exist today. When that
order does come into existence it will not be like any thing else seen
on earth. It will be unique, but similar in some respects. One respect
of similarity - it will take its direction from God. Some things can
not change.
What no one has seen yet is that the Guardian with or without the house
and the house with or without the Guardian has no authority over the
temporal lives of individual Baha'is. They are speaking for God,
reiterating what God has admonished of us. They have exactly the same
recourse as God. Nothing. If God tells me to kneel and pray or to kill
heretics I have to make the decision to do that or to not do that. I
have free will. God will not hit me with a bolt of lightening if I
disobey. God will not kick me off the earth if I disobey. God will not
go online and call me nasty names if I disobey. Why then could or
should those who claim to speak for Him? Where do they get the
authority to be heavier handed than God?
The administrative order of Baha'u'llah STARTS at the local house of
justice which administers the affairs of the community -Baha'i and
non-Baha'i alike to the benefit of all. It suggests the rules and the
kings and rulers (mayors and councils) encact them. If there is EVER a
local house of justice established it will wait and join with other
houses of justice and form a regional national territorial island area
coordinating committee of an intermediate nature which will assist in
the coordination of those local houses of justice activities. IF there
is ever enough regional groups THEY will form a Universal House of
Justice - elected from amongst ALL the Baha'is.
In the meantime the Guardian sits more or less on the sidelines
(hamstrung, hobnailed, less than fully effective) cajoling where he
can, advising where he can and wringing his hands and praying all the
time.
When the Universal House is established, IT WILL legislate on what ever
God has not already said - in one or more of the many books of God. The
Guardian will do his best to keep the house on the spiritual track, as
unlikely as that will be.
At no point will the Universal House of Justive have jurisdictional
authority over any Local House of Justice beyond stating that they
believe God would have said such and such. SAID.
It is my soul. My soul is my responsibilty and these suckers are
SUPPOSED to be helping me. The guardian is helping but the rest of the
cadre is not. I am waiting for a Local House of Justice.
NOW! Tell me where you have ever seen THAT in any governmental
organization?
Robert
hong...@gmail.com
Just making it clear. As I so well know, Michael's a very common name.
This one is a different guy from me. I'm gonna address the post below.
Don't worry, Michael, about how I begin. I eventually clue into where
you seem to be coming from:
ausgep...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Larry,
>
> It is not a replica of former religious institutions at all. The
> amalgamation of the five forms of government as delineated by
Aristotle
> is devoid of the weaknesses these forms of government have had in the
> past either singly in other combination (As Shoghi Effendi points
out).
This is an assertion that is not borne out by reality. It is possible
that it ideally could overcome the inherent weaknesses of the human
condition. However, the incredible inability of Baha'i administration
to even play in the same league as "ordinary" forms of government (in a
beneficial sense; the remark means it hasn't come up to the
performances of better secular government) renders such boasting highly
suspect.
It's there in the theory of Baha'i, but then so is a lot else,
including a truly imaginative elimination of orthodox theology and the
consequent divisive concepts of heresy and thought control. The human
condition seems to be that the ambitious and the narrow minded
manipulate whatever theory there may be, erecting on the idealogy a
foundation upon which to rule, and, in the grand political tradition,
to try all the dirty tricks they can conceive to obtain and retain
personal power.
This is dramatically evident within Baha'i, where the absolute power of
the UHJ has become the only item of belief and anything but a literal
acceptance of its unrestrained ability to do anything at all
interpreted as unbelief. This inspite of the blatant mess Baha'i is in
and the fact that the universalist spirituality of Baha'i has now
become officially a very narrow entity focused , at the bottom line, on
this stereotypical political absolute that the power holder is by
definition correct, regardless of what he does.
> The Divine Genius of The Master has bequeathed to us an
administrative
> order that will lead mankind to a new Golden Age of Peace and
> Prosperity for at least 1000 years.
The very fact that Abdu'l Baha's promise that this would begin before
the end of the 20th Century failed is an indication that the
interpretation of the perfection of the UHJ was wrong. The UHJ
obviously got it wrong and Baha'u'llah intends for this institution to
correct the mistakes, to rule on the foundation of the extensive
spirituality of Baha'i instead of insisting it can do anything at all
and expect that to be defined as perfection.
Aristotle would very clearly have understood the present disfunctional
UHJ and he'd have understood the Old World subject mentality that has
the cowed and indoctrinated unthinkingly asserting that the power
abusers are making perfect decisions when it's blatantly obvious
they've failed miserably.
> Although Shoghi Effendi tells us
> that the Imans and Guardians are analagous in function, we have the
> Will and Testament of Abdu'l Baha to cement the legitimacy of the
> Guardians and circumvent this religion's decline through thwarting or
> annihilating the interpretive function/presidency as was fate of
Islam.
I see. This is a very valid opinion. It seems you're posting as one of
the minority who take the Will and Testiment in a symbolic sense on the
issue of the hereditary nature of the Guardian. There's been a lot of
excessive language and behaviour associated with this understanding.
Baha'i is intended to be about bringing people together and the
symbolic, rather than literal, significance of text very much a Baha'i
teaching from at least as early as the KITAB-I-IQAN.
> Not withstanding this, we have the current assault on the
Guadianship
> by the majority of avowed Believers. I suspect the intelligence of
> this will be manifest to ALL the Believers in the not too distant
> future. There is nothing new in this religion or religions of the
past
> of having the legitimate authority attacked or the Believers being
> tested in this regard.
I agree with Abdu'l Baha that the overwhelming majority of tests are
imposed upon humans by themselves. If the focus is one of being kind to
each soul encountered along the weary way of life, of realizing all are
precious and deserving of sympathy, of overcoming natural urges to
domination, supremecy and conquest, instead co-operating with each
other, seeking to understand other points of view (other descriptions
of the great elephant as shared by fellow blindmen standing somewhere
else), then such tests greatly diminish.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us, you who wear the same
first name as mine, but who are not I.
> Michael
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael
cli...@eudoramail.com
In your message to Larry and Michael you make the same mistake. You are
weighing the administration presented by Baha'u'llah against the
standard of known administrations of the existant world.
You too need to break out of old world thinking patterns. Press the
edge of the envelope, it will give.
You seem to be an intelligent gent, go back and read my previouis post
- tell me what you think of that concept. Not in the details but in the
generallity.
Socrates is kind of old. Where has thought gone since his time?
If you are afraid -scared to hell- of addressing me on line email me at
cliftor (thats an R) at lycos.com
I have many AO people who write to me in secret.
Robert
Finnegan's Wake
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1109742789.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Reality check, Susan: Writing to the House is an acknowledgement of
> > its authority.
>
> Not when it is written in the tone of your wife's letter.
Oh yeh! Of course we must all abide by Susie's Code of Conduct. No wonder
the Triple Trinity is out of touch with reality - nobody has the balls to
say how it really is to them and, if anybody does, they are promptly
demounced as supercilios liars and mischief makers.
> >
> > What you appear to be talking about is some kind of idolatry whereby
> > Alison tells the House that it is propositionally inerrant.
>
> Nonsense. I don't believe in propositional inerrancy myself.
That's "covenantly challenging" talk!
hong...@gmail.com
clif...@eudoramail.com wrote:
> Hello Thrice Three.
>
> In your message to Larry and Michael you make the same mistake. You
are
> weighing the administration presented by Baha'u'llah against the
> standard of known administrations of the existant world.
I think you'll agree that first the Baha'i administration can catch up
to the better examples of secular government. After this it will be
quite all right if the ideal of being a very much higher order of
entity is demonstrated in action, reality and by deeds. There are
theories and there are words. The situation, as sprayed all across this
newsgroup for years is that the ideal has hitherto failed the test of
practicality. It is my ardent hope that this special time of the fast
may release some of the spiritual strengths of Baha'i and thrust it
forward towards a more harmonious means of functioning.
> You too need to break out of old world thinking patterns. Press the
> edge of the envelope,
Oh, I'm all for that. I'm for the entire human species reaching the
understanding that fundamentally, basically and essentially it's human
first, beneficially, hospitably and co-operatively. That's, in fact, as
I see it, the minimum requirement for a species to be considered
sentient. Only after humans have reached this step have they become an
intelligent species.
My eyes are open. Attentive am I. Ready this mind is for data input. As
I see it, human sentience has been considerablt delayed by the
ambitious and the greedy who have fostered divisions for the sake of
personal power and wealth. Any practical examples showing how the
species may be innoculated from such are of considerable interest for
me. Indeed, the Baha'i theory and even the operation of some of the
local assemblies I encountered seemed positive here. The system really
blew apart in the past few decades. However, the future is wide open. I
retain my confidence that free choice enables humans, including
Baha'is, to getback on track, proceed in the direction of beneficial
evolution and show they are an intelligent species.
it will give.
>
> You seem to be an intelligent gent, go back and read my previouis
post
> - tell me what you think of that concept. Not in the details but in
the
> generallity.
Sorry. Maybe you could provide a link. I'm not sure how to search for
what you have in mind. Just repost it or give a link to it or something
(e.g. date and title of post).
> Socrates is kind of old. Where has thought gone since his time?
Oh, a lot of thought has been around for a long time. This thing about
a species having to be conscious it is a species in order to be
intelligent, maybe many human thinkers hadn't considered that before.
In a sense, this can be seen as an amplification or restatement of
Baha'u'llah's encouragement that humanity attain maturity by becoming
harmonious.
> If you are afraid -scared to hell- of addressing me on line email me
at
> cliftor (thats an R) at lycos.com
>
> I have many AO people who write to me in secret.
Robert, Baha'u'llah encouraged his believers to associate with the
followers of all religions in a spirit of fellowship, friendship and
felicity. If anyone's afraid to talk to you, that's just one more sign
of the distance Baha'i has to go to reach the level of better secular
government. You just can't have the harmony of the species if some
folks won't even talk to each other. It just won't fly. Now, even if
there are some who feel you're backing Emperor Norton, well, shucks, he
was a nice guy, widely respected, and being nice back and talking to
him sure didn't demean the US of A any.
In actual fact, this gift of cyberspace, of global instantaneous
communication, as prophecized by the Bab, provided a splendid
opportunity for the Baha'is to prove to the sceptical outside worls
that they could talk to each other, get along with each other and
overcome their own differences as an example of the higher level in
action. That hasn't happened yet, but the opportunities untaken
sometimes remain just waiting. Interesting it is to observe the
possibilities
arriving with the spring just about to refresh the northern memisphere.
> Robert
Thanks for your comments.
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael
cli...@eudoramail.com
to the better examples of secular government."
ground running with the 'higher order' and NOT resemble in any large
degree what already exists. That takes consultation and genuine regard
for all ideas or understandings other people in all six or seven groups
have of the writings. I continually suggest that we form this
government before any of us try running it.
"Only after humans have reached this step have they become an
intelligent species."
Again, I consider humans a most intellegent species, more so than any
species known to me. Perhaps even too intellegent for their own good.
"My eyes are open."
Evidently more widely than my first impression.
"Any practical examples showing how the
species may be innoculated from such are of considerable interest..."
Isolated and short lived examples are there but not readily found.
"...some of the local assemblies I encountered seemed positive here."
Of six or seven I have seen one.
"The system really blew apart in the past few decades."
And there is a plethora of reasons given for that, including mine.
"I retain my confidence that free choice enables humans, including
Baha'is, to getback on track,..."
I know, I am naive too.
"provide a link." Fifth message up from your post to me. Mar 2, 5:23
am If I knew how these blasted machines work I would give better
instructions. Or if your time is not too pressing the web page is at:
http://www.angelfire.com/mt/mendedheart/consult.html
" You just can't have the harmony of the species if some folks won't
even talk to each other."
You are more skilled with words than am I. Harmony of Baha'is would
have been my choice, for then all else will follow.
I hope I have pulled my horns back a little out of sight???
Robert
Finnegan's Wake
<cli...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:1109810197.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Actually not. I feel that the Baha'i administration is to hit the
> ground running with the 'higher order' and NOT resemble in any large
> degree what already exists. That takes consultation and genuine regard
> for all ideas or understandings other people in all six or seven groups
> have of the writings. I continually suggest that we form this
> government before any of us try running it.
And where are its laws? And how are they to be enforced? All those little
mundane things like ... contract, tort, land, zoning, roads and highways,
water purity, pollution, waste disposal, health, education etc etc etc.
Get a grip, Rab! You cannot wipe out centuries of accumulated law and
custom to replace it with an assembly that would do very well if it had a
specialist on two or three of the highly specialised areas of expertise that
underpin highly complex societies.
You would substitute chaos for order; personal prejudice for objective law
and you would have diversity of law and practice from one local area to
another.
Why can you not face the fact that the BAO's only application to secular
governance is in a developing society where any form of democratic or
consultative system is absent? A system, as you envisage, run by Bahais
governing all will lead to disturbance and eventual bloodshed for it will
disenfranchise and alienate those excluded from its formation. Removed from
influence those people will revolt. Are you going to shoot them in the name
of your God?
At present the BAO (haifan variety) couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery
and your lot are streets behind them. Do you really think any society would
willingly hand itself over to rank amateurs and abandon systems of
government developed and evolved over centuries, often at great cost in
terms of human suffering?
No goverment can rule save by consent - if enough people feel strongly
enough that their government is despotic and oppressive, sooner or later, it
will fall to their fury. No government can rule and exclude a minority.
>
Michael McKenny
Hi, Robert.
(cli...@eudoramail.com) writes:
> "I think you'll agree that first the Baha'i administration can catch up
> to the better examples of secular government."
> Actually not. I feel that the Baha'i administration is to hit the
> ground running with the 'higher order' and NOT resemble in any large
> degree what already exists.
I guess I was speaking on the basis of existing reality. My impression is
that you are defining that existing reality to be not Baha'i. Valid view.
> That takes consultation and genuine regard
> for all ideas or understandings other people in all six or seven groups
> have of the writings. I continually suggest that we form this
> government before any of us try running it.
I've said before cyberspace provided the various Baha'i groups with a
splendid opportunity to consult, get their act together and move on to
move the world.
> "Only after humans have reached this step have they become an
> intelligent species."
> Again, I consider humans a most intellegent species, more so than any
> species known to me. Perhaps even too intellegent for their own good.
Disagreement is pretty vast on that one. The definition of intelligence is
awareness, consciousness, realization of existence. As a species, humanity
failed this test. It is not basically aware of its existence as human.
Members of the species self-identify as something less than human, as
Americans, or Baha'is, or whatever, but not as humans. When they identify
as humans at that time they can lay claim to the designation of being an
intelligent species, not before.
>
> "My eyes are open."
> Evidently more widely than my first impression.
>
> "Any practical examples showing how the
> species may be innoculated from such are of considerable interest..."
> Isolated and short lived examples are there but not readily found.
>
> "...some of the local assemblies I encountered seemed positive here."
> Of six or seven I have seen one.
>
> "The system really blew apart in the past few decades."
> And there is a plethora of reasons given for that, including mine.
>
> "I retain my confidence that free choice enables humans, including
> Baha'is, to getback on track,..."
> I know, I am naive too.
>
>
> "provide a link." Fifth message up from your post to me. Mar 2, 5:23
> am If I knew how these blasted machines work I would give better
> instructions. Or if your time is not too pressing the web page is at:
I'll give it a try.
> http://www.angelfire.com/mt/mendedheart/consult.html
>
> " You just can't have the harmony of the species if some folks won't
> even talk to each other."
> You are more skilled with words than am I. Harmony of Baha'is would
> have been my choice, for then all else will follow.
>
> I hope I have pulled my horns back a little out of sight???
Never thought you had any.
> Robert
>
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
Michael McKenny
Hi, Robert.
I take it this is the post you'd like me to read.
(cli...@eudoramail.com) writes:
> Hello Larry,
>
> What no one in any camp seems to see is that the designed
> administrative order of Baha'u'llah does not exist today.
Actually, I reckon a lot of folks have no trouble getting this point.
There's some throwing that term around, but the ideal functioning of the
Order Baha'u'llah revealed is something very remote from what's being
sprayed across this newsgroup.
> When that
> order does come into existence it will not be like any thing else seen
> on earth. It will be unique, but similar in some respects. One respect
> of similarity - it will take its direction from God. Some things can
> not change.
I think it's legitimate for people to ask for proof it can exist in the
real world.
> What no one has seen yet is that the Guardian with or without the house
> and the house with or without the Guardian has no authority over the
> temporal lives of individual Baha'is.
This is touching upon the thought recently posted here that officials
announcing they're going to remove names from their membership lists for
reasons of heretical thought are simply confessing in public to dereliction
of duty.
> They are speaking for God,
> reiterating what God has admonished of us. They have exactly the same
> recourse as God. Nothing. If God tells me to kneel and pray or to kill
> heretics I have to make the decision to do that or to not do that. I
> have free will. God will not hit me with a bolt of lightening if I
> disobey. God will not kick me off the earth if I disobey. God will not
> go online and call me nasty names if I disobey. Why then could or
> should those who claim to speak for Him? Where do they get the
> authority to be heavier handed than God?
This point came up earlier in the discussion about long standing efforts
to indoctrinate people in the largest Baha'i sect to disregard personal
conscience and accept a ruling of the Universal House of Justice as
superior to one's conscience. I take a very firm view on this point. As I
see it, an argument that one is only following orders doesn't hold water.
An intelligent life form, especially a Baha'i expressly ordered to see
through one's own eyes and not through the eyes of others and to take
personal responsibility for one's own actions, cannot switch off
conscience and go around misbehaving, even if one understands god to be
ordering such misbehaviour.
Indeed, in any reasonable system of seeking to determine divine advice,
this is a key factor, if the advice seems to justify something
unconscienable, then clearly the transmission was garbled and such advice
did not come from God.
> The administrative order of Baha'u'llah STARTS at the local house of
> justice which administers the affairs of the community -Baha'i and
> non-Baha'i alike to the benefit of all.
Yes, I think you'll find a number in the largest Baha'i sect who can speak
from the experience of trying at the local level to live this ideal, to
the extent they could. Of course, a fully functioning local house of
justice has not been seen. It would be interesting to see whether such
could function and whether really human ambition and acquisitiveness that
wrecked such havoc among the Haifans can be overcome by the remedial
spiritual energy of the Baha'i revelation. Scepticism is natural on this
point. Baha'i, especially with the martyrdoms in Iran, was given a check
in the 80s, but its dismal performance only intensifies scepticism into
the future.
> It suggests the rules and the
> kings and rulers (mayors and councils) encact them. If there is EVER a
> local house of justice established it will wait and join with other
> houses of justice and form a regional national territorial island area
> coordinating committee of an intermediate nature which will assist in
> the coordination of those local houses of justice activities. IF there
> is ever enough regional groups THEY will form a Universal House of
> Justice - elected from amongst ALL the Baha'is.
Yes, I understand the theory. It will be seeing it in practise that will
count.
> In the meantime the Guardian sits more or less on the sidelines
> (hamstrung, hobnailed, less than fully effective) cajoling where he
> can, advising where he can and wringing his hands and praying all the
> time.
One of the advantages of an unmoderated newsgroup is that you and others
can keep us up to date on what's going on. This isn't the sort of news
that travels freely in controlled Baha'i media. It becomes, I hope, a bit
harder to demonize those who have a visible face, instead of one painted
by them as would demonize. What's this Guardian's name and what has he
done in his time as Guardian, long or short as that may be. And what are
his current thoughts, doings, advice?
> When the Universal House is established, IT WILL legislate
The main Haifan complaint is that their UHJ has spoken a great deal about
beliefs (something they're expressly forbidden to do) and failed to
legislate. I understand you point about legislation.
> on what ever
> God has not already said - in one or more of the many books of God. The
> Guardian will do his best to keep the house on the spiritual track, as
> unlikely as that will be.
> At no point will the Universal House of Justive have jurisdictional
> authority over any Local House of Justice beyond stating that they
> believe God would have said such and such.
Interesting point, except I thought the Guardian states that God said such
and such, not the Universal House of Justice. You're seemingly asserting
the supremecy of local, in contradistinction to global, authority. To a
degree, I've seen this pattern of thought among Haifan Baha'is, for
example, it long used to be the case that funds were contributed locally
and allocated up the ladder.
> SAID.
> It is my soul. My soul is my responsibilty and these suckers are
> SUPPOSED to be helping me. The guardian is helping but the rest of the
> cadre is not. I am waiting for a Local House of Justice.
> NOW! Tell me where you have ever seen THAT in any governmental
> organization?
I think the ideal Baha'i system, especially those aspects focusing on
detachment from personal ambition, even distancing one's ego from the
words one offers to a consultation (so, one doesn't have to defend them
when the consensus moves beyond them), is very different from traditional
human political gamesmanship. All the more tragic that normal politics
made such a mess of the past few decades. However, the key point remains
this issue of being able to present this in reality, as something
practical and really working, so the sceptical can observe it in this
world.
I may have more to say later, but gotta run now.
sma...@jam.rr.com
> the end of the 20th Century failed is an indication that the
> interpretation of the perfection of the UHJ was wrong.
The UHJ
> obviously got it wrong
Huh? If anything, wouldn't that indicate that Abdu'l-Baha got it wrong?
sma...@jam.rr.com
>
> The main Haifan complaint is that their UHJ has spoken a great deal
about
> beliefs (something they're expressly forbidden to do)
There is nothing that says the House of Justice can't speak about
beliefs. What they are forbidden to do is make authorized
interpretations But as far as promoting the Teachings even NSAs have
that responsibility. The Guardian writes:
"The deepening and enrichment of the spiritual life of the individual
believer, his increasing comprehension of the essential verities
underlying this Faith, his training in its administrative processes,
his understanding of the fundamentals of the Covenants established by
its Author and the authorized Interpreter of its teachings, should be
made the supreme objectives of the national representatives responsible
for the edification, the progress and consolidation of these
communities."
Obviously Houses of Justice can't do this if they are forbidden to talk
about beliefs!
cli...@eudoramail.com
Existing reality is merely the starting point. That is where we are,
not a guide to anywhere, not a stable platform for launching anything,
not a reliable directional indication. Existing reality is simply where
we are.
"This is touching upon the thought recently posted". Collective
conscience at work. We will get there. This demonstrates why the
writings say to throw your thoughts on the table.
"I've said before cyberspace provided the various Baha'i groups with
a
splendid opportunity to consult, get their act together and move on to
move the world."
This too, is a sand based starting point. The anonymity of cyberspace
is necessary at this time because as you say we do not recognize our
humanity. Consultation will only take place when we meet face to face,
in love of our humanity, in a common goal of doing what is best for
that humanity. Until then cyberspace will have to do. God loves Dermod
and Susan and me. He didn't make no junk.
It is unfair to test a student on a subject that the student has not
been taught. Humanity has not failed the intelligent species test. The
teachers have failed to teach the material. Could you answer the
question, "How many feet of 15mm ruby red can be run by a 15/30?"
There are maybe a hundred thousand people in the United States who
could give you the answer before you finish this sentence. Someone said
they had to look up pablum. Don't teach to the test but teach the
material and the test will be easy.
Robert
hong...@gmail.com
sma...@jam.rr.com wrote:
> >
> > The main Haifan complaint is that their UHJ has spoken a great deal
> about
> > beliefs (something they're expressly forbidden to do)
>
> There is nothing that says the House of Justice can't speak about
> beliefs. What they are forbidden to do is make authorized
> interpretations
The usage of "spoken a great deal about beliefs" was exactly in the
context of making authorized interpretations, of insisting on
unidimensional understandings and of erecting a system of orthodox
thought with the consequent creation of a class of heretic. This is
explicitly prohibited by Baha'u'llah.
Nothing at all prevents them from joining with the rest of Baha'is in
encouraging Baha'is and non Baha'is to become more aware of the current
stage of humanity's coming together in this age of mature human
harmony. The specific prejudices of the past (against women, against
scientific reasoning, against this or that class or ethnic group,
against the illiterate, the merchant or any other group) call out for
living a life of example, supporting any words that this is a different
day.
By all means let them so live the Baha'i life and comment on the
glorious age in which we live and the requirements (the spiritual
principles) for the coming together in unity of humanity.
What they are expressly prohibited, along with everyone else, from
meddling with is the understandings of the believers, in the sense of
establishing one orthodox catechism and relegating other divinely
endowed views to a category of non believer. There is not an exclusive
dogmatic structure within Baha'i and never can be. Attempts to erect
it, replicating such structures Baha'u'llah condemned in other
religions, within Baha'i, whether from grounds of human ambition,
insecurity, or any of the other causes of this affliction sullying the
waters of previous revelations, are completely contrary to the
teachings of Baha'u'llah and directly opposed to his primary purpose of
unity. This may be evidenced in recent Baha'i history notable for the
novelty of seeking to erect such a unidimensional catechism and for the
resultant disunity that has so sorely shaken Baha'i as a direct result
of this unwise disobedience of Baha'u'llah.
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael
hong...@gmail.com
cli...@eudoramail.com wrote:
> Humanity has not failed the intelligent species test. The
> teachers have failed to teach the material.
This is a highly significant point. My understanding is that humans
would react very badly to any teachers coming in from outside and
trying to teach them. The oft tossed off response to this thing about
getting humans together is that what's required is for something to
come in from outside to unite humans against it. Obviously, this is
flawed reasoning because of that "against it." It doesn't do to raise
up a species of antagonistic xenephobes that'll fire first on visitors
coming from beyond humanity's home.
What's required is for people to become conscious (first, fundamentally
and foremost) that they are people, people hospitable, neighbourly and
of good cheer. This is something, in my opinion, fully within the
capacity of humanity unaided from outside. I am always open to other
opinions, and that's how I see it, that beginning of human sentience.
cli...@eudoramail.com
hong...@gmail.com wrote:
" My understanding is that humans
would react very badly to any teachers coming in from outside and
trying to teach them."
Historically proven to be so time and again.
Tossing off the 'against it' thing and moving on:
"What's required is for people to become conscious (first,
fundamentally
and foremost) that they are people, people hospitable, neighbourly and
of good cheer. This is something, in my opinion, fully within the
capacity of humanity unaided from outside. I am always open to other
opinions, and that's how I see it, that beginning of human sentience."
And that, sir, is what you are doing. You are, from the inside,
teaching humanity, and to test them until you have done your job is an
exercise in futility. To label them unintellegent before they have been
taught is --IMHO wrong.
You have at your beck and call a rather powerful textbook in the Baha'i
writings. Some could debate that its source is outside the human
experience and there is an equal debate that it is the human
experience. Either way we have possession of it. It is useful. It
points us toward the goal you espouse. Montaigne, Shakespeare, Hoffer,
and others also help us along.
A question I use to entice people to my discussion group is "Can man be
moral in the absence of God?" 'Pears to me that you are offering an
emphatic yes.
And so much for the educated. There are still portions of our humanity
who do not know yet that McDonalds exists. Not that that is knowledge
of importance.
I responded to your other notes in seperate threads. This thread is
beyond my capacity to keep up with.
Robert
hong...@gmail.com
sma...@jam.rr.com wrote:
> Huh? If anything, wouldn't that indicate that Abdu'l-Baha got it
wrong?
Abdu'l Baha had it right. World peace was fully attainable within the
20th Century, along with entry by troops, etc. What went wrong was that
Baha'i was transformed by the ordinary ambitious motives of Baha'i
power holders. Instead of the spirituality envisioned by Abdu'l Baha
the peoples of the world had nothing to attract them, only the same
discredited old world attitudes that were bankrupt in the 19th century.
Invited to observe the Baha'i community in the 1980s, the leaders and
peoples of the world saw nothing new. So, the same old cycle of war
contines. This has nothing to do with Abdu'l Baha and everything to do
with those in charge of Baha'i in the closing decades of the 20th
Century. It was the failing of the Universal House of Justice. It is
the Universal House of Justice that retains responsibility for
addressing this failure.
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael
hong...@gmail.com
cli...@eudoramail.com wrote:
> And that, sir, is what you are doing. You are, from the inside,
> teaching humanity, and to test them until you have done your job is
an
> exercise in futility. To label them unintellegent before they have
been
> taught is --IMHO wrong.
Hmmm, well that's a valid personal opinion. I happen to see it
otherwise and feel folks strutting across the planet naming themselves
Homo sapiens need a bit of a wake up call. The automatic assumption
that humans are sentient calls for an objective assessment, not a final
exam, necessarily, but a statement of clear truth towards which humans
can apply themselves. The minimum limits in the entrance exam to
civilized folk can be stated and humans invited to apply, as soon as
they're able to meet those minimum requirements.
> You have at your beck and call a rather powerful textbook in the
Baha'i
> writings. Some could debate that its source is outside the human
> experience and there is an equal debate that it is the human
> experience. Either way we have possession of it. It is useful. It
> points us toward the goal you espouse.
I've no problem with humans making use of it, whether they call it
internal or external.
> Montaigne, Shakespeare, Hoffer,
> and others also help us along.
There's been a lot of fine human thought throughout the ages.
> A question I use to entice people to my discussion group is "Can man
be
> moral in the absence of God?" 'Pears to me that you are offering an
> emphatic yes.
I'm going to have to sign off. Maybe I'll resume this when I'm back in
the neighbourhood.
> And so much for the educated. There are still portions of our
humanity
> who do not know yet that McDonalds exists. Not that that is knowledge
> of importance.
>
> I responded to your other notes in seperate threads. This thread is
> beyond my capacity to keep up with.
This one only has about fifty posts to it. Now that threatened Canadian
one with its six hundred and fifty, that sure is something.
> Robert
See Ya Later
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael
cli...@eudoramail.com
sma...@jam.rr.com
Baha'u'llah to substantiate your case?
sma...@jam.rr.com
> Abdu'l Baha had it right. World peace was fully attainable within the
> 20th Century, along with entry by troops, etc. What went wrong was
that
> Baha'i was transformed by the ordinary ambitious motives of Baha'i
> power holders.
I see. So we are responsible for the war in Iraq?
Aren't you forgetting that it was the Lesser Peace, not the Most Great
Peace that was expected to come by the end of the 20th Century? The
Lesser Peace didn't involve masses of people becoming Baha'i.
Heather Carr-Rowe
Hello Michael and Robert,
I tend towards an evolutionary big picture. We don't look back at our
Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon ancestors and think " boy those guys were
savages, uncivilized, because they weren't 'spiritual' enough." It wasn't
anything to do with spirituality and everything to do with social, ethical,
moral and intellectual evolution.
The desire to separate the physical from the spiritual world comes from our
need to make sense of what we do not yet have the tools to describe
empirically. We used to attribute natural phenomena to the gods and we still
attribute natural phenomena to God. This imaginary divide between the
natural world and the spiritual world is the great illusion. We have created
this illusion because of our mortality, because we fear that we will be
extinguished. So we defer to the after life, to the next incarnation.
Buddhists and theists both have used this myth but in different forms.
We defer the Kingdom of God to after the end of days, we defer the Buddha
land until the next incarnation. While these have been totally
understandable human reactions and defence mechanisms, the toll they have
taken on our ecosphere is horrific. Yet perhaps it is inevitable for
species such as ourselves who develop the ability to split the atom to come
to this impasse. Perhaps this impasse will force a subtle, an inscrutable
change in the genome of man. An evolutionary change to even one group of
genes. A change which will enable humanity to be rid of idle fancies, to be
done with corrupt desires. A change "that will make thee like unto Myself. I
say 'Be' and it is, and thou shalt say 'Be', and it shall be."
"The day is approaching when God will have, by an act of His Will, raised up
a race of men the nature of which is inscrutable to all save God, the
All-Powerful, the Self-Subsisting. He shall purify them from the defilement
of idle fancies and corrupt desires, shall lift them up to the heights of
holiness, and shall cause them to manifest the signs of His sovereignty and
might upon earth. Thus hath it been ordained by God, the All-Glorious, the
All-Loving."
(Baha'u'llah, The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 5)
All the best!
Your Larry
Finnegan's Wake
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1109912312.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Michael, when are you going to come up with some actual statements by
> Baha'u'llah to substantiate your case?
>
If you so little know your faith that you have to rely on others to educate
you in it, how come you are here presented as the staunch defender .... I
geddit now ... you don't defend the faith - you defend the AO, which, also,
has lost sight of ....
sma...@jam.rr.com
>
> If you so little know your faith that you have to rely on others to
educate
> you in it, how come you are here presented as the staunch defender
....
I know plenty about the Writings, but Michael presents only his own
interpretations which can't be refuted without looking at the actual
verses.
Finnegan's Wake
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1109943624....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I think we are relieved that you can refute ... without knowing which bits
he's likely to cite. That's most useful .... and covenantly friendly, to
boot!
>
cli...@eudoramail.com
> <sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
"I know plenty about the Writings, but Michael presents only his own
interpretations which can't be refuted without looking at the actual
verses."
The key to this, Susan, is being 'refuted without verses.' One can not
parse a contract without reading the contract and checking for crossed
t's and dotted i's. One can not make their case until they have defined
to their own advantage what is is.
If you really knew 'plenty' about the writings you would know that the
choice wine is what we have been given and not a mere (note the word
MERE) code of laws. You would know that to take a word, a phrase, a
line, a portion of or the whole of the writings and to argue over the
'actual verses' is to wax proud and self centered.
Argue your impressions of the writings Susan. Let lawyers argue over
'codes of laws'. Tell us what you think of the writings.
Why would you want to refute Larry's interpretations??? They sound a
lot better than most of the rest of our interpretations. What is
yours??
Would you like me to quote verse and chapter from whence this concept
springs?
Robert
cli...@eudoramail.com
You wrote: "I tend towards an evolutionary big picture. We don't
look back at our Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon ancestors and think " boy
those guys were savages, uncivilized, because they weren't 'spiritual'
enough." It wasn't anything to do with spirituality and everything to
do with social, ethical, moral and intellectual evolution."
species'. The writings state that Man has been Man from inception
which I take to mean that the first man - I refer to as Adam - was
spiritual identically to the final man at entropy. I will let those of
scientific bent determine whether Adam was a Lemur or something else.
In the by'n'by I agree with your statement, they were savages,
uncivilized but they were equally spiritual to any other man past
present or future. The evolutionary big picture dictates that you and I
in future will be seen too as savages, perhaps presently on the cutting
edge of civilized. The intelligent species postulation is that we are
not yet close to civilized until we recognize our own humanity and
accordingly we are far from that position. I take all of this to mean
that we agree with the writings, we are all identical in the eyes of
God.
"The desire to separate the physical from the spiritual world comes
from our need to make sense of what we do not yet have the tools to
describe
empirically."
'inability' to connect the physical and spiritual rather than a
desire. I think we actually desire to connect them in spite of the
writings saying that such realm is an unknowable. I would go further
and say that we will never have the tools. To have the tools would
instantly deprive us of free will. We would no longer have the ability
to say "God does not exist." Perhaps we need to hear your
definition of 'connect'?
"the toll they have taken on our ecosphere is horrific."
And the balance of this statement states your political agenda that
ecochange is bad. Not knowing whether change is good or bad, I'll
stay out of that one.
If you want to discuss genome change think about the upcoming Homo
Machinus, the future blend of soft bodied man and mechanical
computerized 'improvements'. One eventuality would be that there
becomes no obvious link between the HM and the previous Homo-Sapiens.
(they will be able to check the hard drive though.)
Robert
hong...@gmail.com
sma...@jam.rr.com wrote:
> > Abdu'l Baha had it right. World peace was fully attainable within
the
> > 20th Century, along with entry by troops, etc. What went wrong was
> that
> > Baha'i was transformed by the ordinary ambitious motives of Baha'i
> > power holders.
>
> I see. So we are responsible for the war in Iraq?
There is very often a situation of joint responsibilty. Very clearly,
in Baha'i teaching, each indovidual is fully responsible for spiritual,
ethical and moral behaviour. So, if one finds herself/himself in a
situation in which the opportunity exists to do wrong, then she/he
can't blame it on others and say, "I was only obeying orders," or, "I
was in such and such a state," or, "My family background," etc.
Personal responsibility fully exists and may not be excused.
This is a different matter entirely from expecting specific religious
suggestions to be followed by those who had no opportunity to
encounter, for example, the noble Eightfold Path of the Enlightened
One. The individual has full responsibility to behave morally,
according to the spirituality available.
It also does not eliminate the responsibility of any enforcing other
individuals to be confronted with unpalatable situations. Each
individual has full responsibility, including those whose control over
others, as largely defined, places them in testing situations.
Specifically, the greed and ambition of the US president and his circle
of advisors, along with the greed and recklessness of a large portion
of the US population, insisting on placing demands on global oil
reserves that formed a significant reasoning for the invasion of Iraq,
are causes for the war. The president, his advisors and the majority of
the US population, as stated above, are fully responsible, each in her
or his own way.
This does not let off the hook, the Universal House of Justice, nor the
majority of the believers who tolerated the Universal House of Justice,
for the same reasons and with the same responsibility as the oppressed
peoples of other totalitarian systems have tolerated the unacceptable.
Holding unrestrained absolute rule, the men of the House of Justice
bear full responsibility for altering Baha'u'llah's splendid paradigm
of mature human harmony into a replica of obscurantist medievalism.
There was no practical example to offer the peoples and rulers of the
world as proof new methods could be effective and stereotypical power
plays relegated to history.
In this sense, the men of the Universal House of Justice bear full
responsibility for the continuation of war in the 21st Century, while
those such as the US president and his backers also bear full
responsibility for invading Iraq.
I look forward to a reawakening of all Baha'is, especially those
holding positions of responsibility, to their inescapable duty to
manifest the glory of the springtime of the mature harmony of humanity.
I look forward to all humans, aware and unaware of the state of Baha'i,
quickly attaining consciousness of their being all members of the same
species, able to get along without the traditional pattern of conflict
and contention.
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael
Heather Carr-Rowe
As usual you make some good and insightful points.
Our inability to connect the natural, and spiritual shows in our desire to
justify this inability through our world views.
Hard to put this stuff into words, ain't it?
For me Robert it is clear that Baha'u'llah tells us that the requirement
for the Kingdom is : "that all men shall be regarded as one soul, so that
the seal bearing the words "The Kingdom shall be God's" may be stamped on
every heart, and the light of Divine bounty, of grace, and mercy may envelop
all mankind."
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 259)
I also feel that in regarding all people ' as one soul ' we will also
understand and see what Baha'u'llah spoke of in His Seven Valleys :
'The wayfarer in this Valley seeth in the fashionings of the True One
nothing save clear providence, and at every moment saith: "No defect canst
thou see in the creation of the God of Mercy: Repeat the gaze: Seest thou a
single flaw?"
(Baha'u'llah, The Seven Valleys, p. 11)
Any flaw we perceive in God's creation, in nature, is in our way of seeing
not in God's creation itself.
Yours Larry
cli...@eudoramail.com
"Hard to put this stuff into words, ain't it? "
After Baha'u'llah put it into words it became even harder for us to
understand what he said. You, for one, are doing very well in
understanding the message. (And to avoid a fight from others I must add
IMHO).
What so many have a problem with is the inadequacies of the Farsi
language and the inability of scholars to agree on comparable words in
other languages and thus the meaning of "Our purpose is the edification
of man - not to build gold plated empires." and "leave each other alone
in their concepts of who God is."
Yeah, it is hard to put this stuff into words.
Robert