Why I left (expanded version)
Timothy Mulligan
been a member for only several months. I thought I would commemorate
the return of my membership card by recounting why I left.
First, let me say that, with hindsight, I can’t imagine why I ever
joined the faith. I had sworn off religion, but something in the
advance literature (the pamphlets, the introductory books) seemed to
superficially allay concerns I had that the multiplicity of religions
signaled their invalidity. I thought to myself, "Here at last is a
tolerant religion that reconciles the differences. They say they don't
proselytize, and they affirm the truth of all the great religions." I
had some lingering doubts, especially regarding the inclusion of Buddha,
a man who refused to discuss metaphysics and who described Brahman as
deluded about his divinity, as a Manifestation of God. Also, the Baha'i
exegesis of the New Testament was tortured to say the least. But I
jumped in anyway.
When I got to participate in actual feasts as a declared Baha’i, the
picture changed. There was almost zero attention paid to the spiritual
formation of members, especially new members. The unrelenting focus was
on getting new members. The hackneyed phrase “entry by troops” was
mindlessly and continuously repeated like a mantra. A goal was set by
my state's Bahai's on the number of firesides to be held by
Baha'u'llah's birthday. This rapacious attitude turned my stomach,
reminding me of Jehovah's Witnesses. I thought the Baha'i Faith was
tolerant toward other religions. Didn't this push for conversions imply
intolerance?
For this reason, I looked forward to my first attendance at a
“deepening.” I thought, "Now at last I'll find some spiritual
substance." What did I find at the deepening? A videotape of a Baha’i
National Spiritual Assembly meeting, where every speaker to a man went
on and on about getting new members.
Oh, how could I forget those memorable feasts where a tape recorded
message would be played, usually, of course, on the subject either of
getting new members or contributing to the Baha’i Funds. I felt like I
was one of Charlie’s Angels. (Can’t you just imagine Bob Henderson,
lounging by the pool, sipping a (non-alcoholic) drink and dictating to
the tape recorder?)
I thought to myself: Are these people crazy? How in the world can
they expect to keep the new members that they do recruit if all that the
new members will encounter upon joining is an incessant demand to
“teach” and get new members? Oh, and that’s another thing. I have to
laugh when I think back to what the “advance” literature said about
Baha’is not proselytizing. I discovered, alas too late, that there is a
particular and peculiar Baha’i definition of “proselytize,” which means
“to convert by force or threats.” Oh, I see. So the happy-talk about
not proselytizing meant, “Hey folks! We don’t convert by force!” Wow.
What an enticement. I found out that instead, Baha’is “teach.” That’s
like saying, “I didn’t abort my child. I terminated a pregnancy.”
In short, I found that the Baha’i Faith was the religious equivalent
of AmWay.
Then of course I found that lots of little omissions had been made
in introductory literature. They don’t tell you how many wives
Baha’u’llah had. Or that he was a midget (see my other post dated
today). Okay, that’s not fair (although it’s true -- didn't you know
that you were praying to a midget?). One “teaching” book by Gary
Matthews lauds the perspicacity of Baha’u’llah in writing that “every
star hath its planets,” omitting that he says immediately thereafter
“and every planet its creatures.” Stuff like that began to burn my ass
big time.
Contradictions began to emerge. I compared the “Tablet of the True
Seeker” in the Kitab-i-Iqan, which enjoins the independent investigation
of truth, with the dire, shrill threats hurled at unbelievers in the
Kitab-i-Aqdas and could only shake my head in wonder. There was so much
explaining and back-filling in Baha'i propaganda. For example, in the
Kitab-i-Aqdas, Baha'u'llah says that men can have two wives. Later,
Abdul Baha says that this meant men could only have one wife. Let the
mind games begin!
Anyway, it quickly dawned on me that this religion was going nowhere
fast. Its stated objective of becoming a world religion and
establishing a world Baha’i government is ludicrous. It will never
happen. The early Christians expected Jesus (the real Jesus, not
Baha'u'llah-as-Jesus) to come back during their lifetimes; they were
wrong, and they're still waiting. Now the Bahai's are waiting for entry
by troops, the collapse of world civilization, and the triumphant
takeover of the world by Bahai's. It's not happening. I don’t care how
many times Abdul Baha appears. In any case, he’s got lots of
competition from the Virgin Mary, the Ascended Masters, and little gray
aliens.
That brings me to a little metaphysical speculation. I'm sure there
have been apparitions of Abdul Baha, as well as amazing synchronicities
that Baha'is call "confirmations." But, folks, phenomena like this are
reported in all religions and spiritual paths. The world is awash in
reports of these types of things. Moreover, there has been a gang of
self-proclaimed god-men even in this century, from Reverend Moon to Adi
Da, each with their fanatical followers willing to follow the leader all
the way to martyrdom. This world, and the spiritual world, is a very
complicated and diverse place. In ways that we don't fully understand,
human beings can tap into spiritual realities and develop very real
psychic powers. In Hinduism, these are called "siddhis," and they've
been documented for several thousand years. They are not proof that
those possessed of them are worthy of worship. In fact, the spiritual
literature warns about the ego-inflation that can result from their
exercise. It seems to me that Baha'u'llah didn't heed that warning.
Anyway, I finally decided that I had to return my membership card to
Bob Henderson. Bob, if you’re reading this, I wish you all the best. I
assure you that I will continue to wash my feet every day, not only in
the summer, but all year round. And don’t forget: ENTRY BY TROOPS!
ENTRY BY TROOPS!
Tim Mulligan
tmul...@central.uh.edu
darr...@hotmail.com
I'd like to reply to some of your comments:
In article <35D30CCE...@central.uh.edu>,
Timothy Mulligan <tmul...@central.uh.edu> wrote:
> Well, it’s been a year since I left the Baha’i Faith after having
> been a member for only several months. I thought I would commemorate
> the return of my membership card by recounting why I left.
>
> First, let me say that, with hindsight, I can’t imagine why I ever
> joined the faith. I had sworn off religion, but something in the
> advance literature (the pamphlets, the introductory books) seemed to
> superficially allay concerns I had that the multiplicity of religions
> signaled their invalidity. I thought to myself, "Here at last is a
> tolerant religion that reconciles the differences. They say they don't
> proselytize, and they affirm the truth of all the great religions." I
> had some lingering doubts, especially regarding the inclusion of Buddha,
> a man who refused to discuss metaphysics and who described Brahman as
> deluded about his divinity, as a Manifestation of God. Also, the Baha'i
> exegesis of the New Testament was tortured to say the least. But I
> jumped in anyway.
Darrick: Buddha discussed the existence of God many times, but He called Him
"Truth", "The Uncreated", and like terms. You may say He was a metaphycial
"purist"; a good thing in a time when Hinduism was overly metaphysical, and
described millions of gods and goddesses in the forms of humans, monkeys,
rats, and elephants. Buddha once gave a sermon which He said that Brahman
thought He created the Universe, but He was mistaken; because the Universe
had already existed, but had merely come from one form to another. Buddha was
refuting the Hindu Brahma; the Creator deity of the Hindu Trimurti of Brahma,
Vishnu, Shiva. While Brahma is a figment of the imagination of some
polytheistic Hindu priest--who invented him thousands of years ago-- Buddha
_did_ acknowledge the existence of BRAHMA: the One Supreme Being. Vaishnavist
Hindus (worshippers of Vishnu) believe that Vishnu is Brahma, and Brahma
Vishnu. The Bhagavad Gita confirms this. This is also a Baha'i belief. Braham
is Jehovah, or Vishnu, or Allah. He has many names. Buddha never refuted Him,
but only false Hindu conceptions of Brahman (an anthropomorphic creator-deity
who false thinks he is the highest god and who--in Hindu mythology--rapes his
own daughter).
> When I got to participate in actual feasts as a declared Baha’i, the
> picture changed. There was almost zero attention paid to the spiritual
> formation of members, especially new members. The unrelenting focus was
> on getting new members.
Darrick: This is true! Actually, almost zero emphasis is put on moral or
religious teaching, and almost 100% of social teachings. The fact that you
saw people discuss entry-by-troops all the time is only because it has
recently been emphasized. But instead of leaving, you should have become a
change-agent. It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
The hackneyed phrase “entry by troops” was
> mindlessly and continuously repeated like a mantra. A goal was set by
> my state's Bahai's on the number of firesides to be held by
> Baha'u'llah's birthday. This rapacious attitude turned my stomach,
> reminding me of Jehovah's Witnesses. I thought the Baha'i Faith was
> tolerant toward other religions. Didn't this push for conversions imply
> intolerance?
Darrick: Who told you the Baha'i Faith was tolerant of other religions? You
were misinformed. The true Baha'i teaching is that the Faith has the greatest
Truth, and all must conform to this truth. The Faith is not Unitarianism. If
you wanted a religion that teaches that "all religions are true" then you
should become a Unitarian. The Faith actually teaches that "all religions
_began_ true, but were corrupted, and the Faith is the latest Revelation of
the One True Religion--uncorrupted". God has only one Truth. Jehovah's
Witnesses believe they have it, but Baha'is believe they do. NO! Both don't
cancel each other out. It is equally as probably that one is in fact True,
while the other is less true. If Baha'u'llah was Who He said He was, then the
Faith is the fulness of Truth; not the exclusiveness of Truth.
> For this reason, I looked forward to my first attendance at a
> “deepening.” I thought, "Now at last I'll find some spiritual
> substance." What did I find at the deepening? A videotape of a Baha’i
> National Spiritual Assembly meeting, where every speaker to a man went
> on and on about getting new members.
Darrick: Again, the Baha'is in this country don't yet know _HOW_ to
spiritually feed new Believers. But _this will change_, and is changing. The
Faith is still in it's pioneer phase. The Faith in the U.S. has been very
secularized and watered-down because it was invaded by tens of thousands of
social-reform activists during the 30s to late 70s. These people tended to
ignore the moral and religious teachings, and to overemphasize--again and
again and again--the social teachings. Now, the need for converts is
beginning to drown-out the overemphasis on social teachings. You _still_
could have been spiritually fed in this Faith; but you need to "feed
yourself" (get the Writings and study yourself). Some Baha'is today recognize
that the Faith in this country is too "social-activist" and not enough
"spirituality". This is changing, and you should have stayed and helped.
> Oh, how could I forget those memorable feasts where a tape recorded
> message would be played, usually, of course, on the subject either of
> getting new members or contributing to the Baha’i Funds. I felt like I
> was one of Charlie’s Angels. (Can’t you just imagine Bob Henderson,
> lounging by the pool, sipping a (non-alcoholic) drink and dictating to
> the tape recorder?)
Darrick: The Mission of Baha'u'llah was to Unite Mankind. Why? Because the
human race will end if it is not united. Thus, He becomes the Savior of the
Human Species. But this collective salvation cannot be accomplished without
the help of every Baha'i, and this means sacrifice; in time and money. For
now, your own spiritual education and growth must be a personal private
affair. All forces in the Faith are geared toward growth. Because if the
Faith doesn't grow, then it can't conquer the world. Hopefully, some day
soon, the Faith will emphasize the moral and spiritual principles in the
meetings. In fact, plans have been drawn to do this, but won't be implemented
until _after_ the 4-year Plan (i.e. 2001 at the earliest).
> I thought to myself: Are these people crazy? How in the world can
> they expect to keep the new members that they do recruit if all that the
> new members will encounter upon joining is an incessant demand to
> “teach” and get new members?
Darrick: Good point! You should have been spiritually fed. You should have
been taught that you needed a spiritual conversion to Baha'u'llah; instead of
joining just because you agreed with some of the Principles. Those who are
not spiritually converted ("born-again") will not stand.
Oh, and that’s another thing. I have to
> laugh when I think back to what the “advance” literature said about
> Baha’is not proselytizing. I discovered, alas too late, that there is a
> particular and peculiar Baha’i definition of “proselytize,” which means
> “to convert by force or threats.” Oh, I see. So the happy-talk about
> not proselytizing meant, “Hey folks! We don’t convert by force!” Wow.
> What an enticement. I found out that instead, Baha’is “teach.” That’s
> like saying, “I didn’t abort my child. I terminated a pregnancy.”
Darrick: If the Baha'is told you that we don't proselyte, they were using
Shoghi Effendi's definition of the term. He defined it as "using coercion,
threat, or force in teaching". Of course Baha'is seek converts. They want to
convert the entire world. You should have known this.
> In short, I found that the Baha’i Faith was the religious equivalent
> of AmWay.
Darrick: Actually, Scientology is the religious equivalent of AmWay. Baha'is
don't expect personal gains by their sacrifices, but to help save the World
from destruction; spiritually and physically.
> Then of course I found that lots of little omissions had been made
> in introductory literature. They don’t tell you how many wives
> Baha’u’llah had. Or that he was a midget (see my other post dated
> today). Okay, that’s not fair (although it’s true -- didn't you know
> that you were praying to a midget?).
Darrick: Introductory literature is for the purpose of attracting souls. What
does the fact that Baha'u'llah had three wives to do with attracting souls?
Baha'is don't try to deny it, but it is something that has nothing to do with
a person's salvation, or the salvation of mankind. The fact that Baha'u'llah
was short (not a midget nor a dwarf) should make short people feel happy! It
should make tall people feel humble (for a change). What does one's height
have to do with one's spiritual stations anyway?
One “teaching” book by Gary
> Matthews lauds the perspicacity of Baha’u’llah in writing that “every
> star hath its planets,” omitting that he says immediately thereafter
> “and every planet its creatures.” Stuff like that began to burn my ass
> big time.
Darrick: Every planet does have it's creature; sooner or later. Venus was once
inhabited, and some day the Earth will look like Venus. Someday Mars will
resemble the Earth. Billions of years from now, when the Sun expands, then the
outer planets will congeal into Earth-like planets. Every star will have it's
planets; but not all at the same time.
> Contradictions began to emerge. I compared the “Tablet of the True
> Seeker” in the Kitab-i-Iqan, which enjoins the independent investigation
> of truth, with the dire, shrill threats hurled at unbelievers in the
> Kitab-i-Aqdas and could only shake my head in wonder.
Darrick: You are confusing "independent investigation of truth" with "every
religion is true". This is not what Baha'u'llah taught. He taught that
everyone should seek Truth regardless of their parentage, their geographical
location, etc. But not everything is "Truth". For those who reject the
Truth--after they have independently discovered it--then YES, there are
eternal negative consequences.
There was so much
> explaining and back-filling in Baha'i propaganda. For example, in the
> Kitab-i-Aqdas, Baha'u'llah says that men can have two wives. Later,
> Abdul Baha says that this meant men could only have one wife. Let the
> mind games begin!
Darrick: Baha'u'llah actually wrote "do not go beyond two". Now, did He mean:
1) You can marry no more than two women at the same time? 2) You can only
marry twice (i.e. can only marry another women after the first is dead or
divorced from you). 3) You can marry a second wife if the first one is
incompacitated (i.e. crazy, or a total invalid). 4) You can have two wives,
and as many concubines as you wish? 5) You can have two wives, but only if
you treat them equally, and since you can't do it--because you are mere
mortals--then you can only have one. His statement can be interpreted in any
of the above ways. Since 'Abdu'l-Baha was His Interpreter, then He knew what
Baha'u'llah meant. I personally believe (just my opinion) that Baha'u'llah
allowed the marriage of a second wife if the first was infertile, or became
incompacitated. A Baha'i husband is not allowed to put his seed into a
surrogate; even by artificial insemination. But, again, this is only my
opinion. This verse troubled me too. But, I can see the wisdom in it.
> Anyway, it quickly dawned on me that this religion was going nowhere
> fast. Its stated objective of becoming a world religion and
> establishing a world Baha’i government is ludicrous. It will never
> happen.
Darrick: Obviously, you signed the Declaration Card knowing _very_ little
about the Faith!!! The _entire mission_ of Baha'u'llah was to form a World
Commonwealth; so that mankind can avoid self-destruction. Why in the "world"
did you join this religion? The Baha'is in this country teach people a few
social-principles, and then have them sign a card and expect them to obey and
understand Baha'u'llah. WHEN WILL THEY EVER LEARN?
The early Christians expected Jesus (the real Jesus, not
> Baha'u'llah-as-Jesus) to come back during their lifetimes; they were
> wrong, and they're still waiting.
Darrick: Jesus DID return in their own lifetimes! I suggest you look at the
Preterist view of Christian history. I suggest you go to search engines on
the Internet and type in "Preterist". Jesus returned in 70 A.D.; not in His
physical body, but in His ethereal form; which can only be seen in visions.
Baha'u'llah is not the return of Jesus, but the return of "Christ"; the Holy
Spirit Who embodied Jesus from His baptism until His crucifixion.
Now the Bahai's are waiting for entry
> by troops, the collapse of world civilization, and the triumphant
> takeover of the world by Bahai's. It's not happening.
Darrick: Many people doubted that the Soviet Union would fall for hundreds of
years, if ever. This World System _will fall_. This may be only an economic
collapse; which we may now be seeing the beginning of. It will fall; because
God has says it will. When that happens, mankind will be humbled, and seek a
divine system instead of a Humanist one.
I don’t care how
> many times Abdul Baha appears. In any case, he’s got lots of
> competition from the Virgin Mary, the Ascended Masters, and little gray
> aliens.
Darrick: How do you know the Virgin Mary has not appeared? How do you know
that Ascended Masters have not appeared? How do you know creatures from other
systems have not visited here? Each has a purpose; not all of them divine.
> That brings me to a little metaphysical speculation. I'm sure there
> have been apparitions of Abdul Baha, as well as amazing synchronicities
> that Baha'is call "confirmations." But, folks, phenomena like this are
> reported in all religions and spiritual paths.
Darrick: I've never heard of Unitarians having them! There are Seers and
visions in every major religion, and many of them have prophecied of
Baha'u'llah.
The world is awash in
> reports of these types of things. Moreover, there has been a gang of
> self-proclaimed god-men even in this century, from Reverend Moon to Adi
> Da, each with their fanatical followers willing to follow the leader all
> the way to martyrdom. This world, and the spiritual world, is a very
> complicated and diverse place. In ways that we don't fully understand,
> human beings can tap into spiritual realities and develop very real
> psychic powers. In Hinduism, these are called "siddhis," and they've
> been documented for several thousand years. They are not proof that
> those possessed of them are worthy of worship. In fact, the spiritual
> literature warns about the ego-inflation that can result from their
> exercise. It seems to me that Baha'u'llah didn't heed that warning.
Darrick: 'Abdu'l-Baha actually preached again "psychic powers", and never
claimed to have them. All He had was the Holy Spirit to guide His
interpretations of what His Father wrote. 'Abdu'l-Baha was so humble, that He
refused to have people bow to Him. Baha'u'llah never practice Yoga or any
Hindu practices. He did, however, miraculously heal people, but the Baha'is
don't offer these things as proofs; since they are only proofs to those that
witness them.
> Anyway, I finally decided that I had to return my membership card to
> Bob Henderson. Bob, if you’re reading this, I wish you all the best. I
> assure you that I will continue to wash my feet every day, not only in
> the summer, but all year round. And don’t forget: ENTRY BY TROOPS!
> ENTRY BY TROOPS!
>
> Tim Mulligan
> tmul...@central.uh.edu
Darrick: Tim, I am sorry that the Baha'is in this country had you sign a card
not knowing what you were getting into, and not having a testimony of
Baha'u'llah. It was wrong and foolish of them, but you can't judge the Faith
by it's stupid members, but by Baha'u'llah. I hope you will get to know Him,
and His son, and not rely on what foolish Baha'is have told you (or failed to
tell you). You have not rejected the Faith--you've never known it! All you
have done is rejected what some ignorant and foolish Baha'is have told you. I
hope you will reexamine the Faith; this time from the Sources, and not from
the mouths of the American Believers. Darrick Evenson
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Graham Sorenson
to enter. Others step inside, behold its beauty, but do not penetrate
far. Still others encircle this garden inhaling the fragrance of the
flowers, having enjoyed its full beauty, pass out again by the same
gate. But there are always some who enter and, becoming intoxicated
with the splendor of what they behold, remain for life to tend the
garden."
Atrributed to 'Abdu'l-Baha AFAIK
--
http://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk/bahai.html -- http://www.bahai.org
http://www.breacais.demon.co.uk -- http://www.onecountry.org
http://www.bcca.org/~glittle -- http://www.bcca.org/~cvoogt
"The Baha'is". A magazine format, wonderful introduction to the Faith.
http://oneworld.wa.com/bahai/magazine/cover.html
Frederick Glaysher
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron House <ho...@usq.edu.au>
To: bahai...@makelist.com <bahai...@makelist.com>
Date: Sunday, August 16, 1998 11:22 PM
Subject: [bahai-faith] Re: Re: Re: Why I left
>LaAe...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> Poor Timothy. Evidently he missed the part where Baha'u'llah states we
are to
>> know of our own knowledge and see with our own eyes. I guess he was
>> expecting a quick fix and didn't want to take the time to do any in depth
>> study on his own...
>> Nancy
>
>I think that's a trifle harsh. Sorting out the
>full reasons for the present predicament isn't
>at all easy, and it is also written in scripture
>that "by their fruits shall ye know them". If the
>Baha'is Timothy knew couldn't give him the smallest
>reason to want to hang around after sincerely
>chosing Baha'u'llah, then there must be something
>very severely wrong with the Baha'is. I know exactly
>what Timothy means. Here in Australia, they sent out
>a glossy, expensive booklet about the three things
>necessary for (wait for it) Entry By Troops. The outer
>one was teaching, the inner one spiritual transformation.
>But almost every word inside concerned teaching. Their idea
>of spiritual transformation was limited to calls for
>deepenings and prayers. The fact is they just don't
>know how to do anything different, even though they
>have been calling for (and not getting) Entry By Troops
>ever since I became a Baha'i in the '70s.
>
>--
>Ron House ho...@usq.edu.au
>
>Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is
>unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30.
>
>____________________________________________________________
>List Site: http://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/
>To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith...@makelist.com
>
>FREE group e-mail lists at http://www.findmail.com
>
Richard Schaut
Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <6r9674$9...@news3.newsguy.com>...
>From: Ron House <ho...@usq.edu.au>
>>Sorting out the
>>full reasons for the present predicament isn't
>>at all easy, and it is also written in scripture
>>that "by their fruits shall ye know them". If the
>>Baha'is Timothy knew couldn't give him the smallest
>>reason to want to hang around after sincerely
>>chosing Baha'u'llah, then there must be something
>>very severely wrong with the Baha'is.
Your first statement is exactly correct: it is quite difficult to sort out
the reasons why a person chooses to leave any community. Your second
statement, however, stands in stark contrast to the first. If it is,
indeed, quite difficult to sort these things out, then how can such heavy
blame be placed on the Baha'is of that community?
Quite often, people run into a teaching which they have great difficulty
accepting. It becomes, for them, a severe test of their faith. For many of
these people, there is very little any other Baha'i can do, and to blame the
Baha'i community for the result of one person's encounter with a personally
difficult teaching is as harsh as it is to blame the individual.
In Mr. Mulligan's case, I think there's pretty strong evidence--most notably
the trivial nature of his criticisms--that he ran into a teaching that he
had difficulty accepting.
>>I know exactly
>>what Timothy means. Here in Australia, they sent out
>>a glossy, expensive booklet about the three things
>>necessary for (wait for it) Entry By Troops. The outer
>>one was teaching, the inner one spiritual transformation.
>>But almost every word inside concerned teaching. Their idea
>>of spiritual transformation was limited to calls for
>>deepenings and prayers. The fact is they just don't
>>know how to do anything different, even though they
>>have been calling for (and not getting) Entry By Troops
>>ever since I became a Baha'i in the '70s.
Both your assessment and Mr. Mulligan's assessment of the Baha'i Community's
approach teaching the Faith is far too superficial to be of much use. This
is an all-too-commain plaint that "something's wrong" without very much
insight into precisely what is wrong and what we might do to improve. In
that sense, this appears to be little more than criticism for criticism's
sake.
So, Ron, what should we Baha'is be doing differently?
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Timothy Mulligan
Darrick, I think you may be correct in your analysis. I stand corrected. But I
should correct you on one point: Brahman is the “uncreated,” and Brahma is the
deluded, anthropomorphic deity. I confused that in my post, and I think you
confuse it here also.
> > When I got to participate in actual feasts as a declared Baha’i, the
> > picture changed. There was almost zero attention paid to the spiritual
> > formation of members, especially new members. The unrelenting focus was
> > on getting new members.
>
> Darrick: This is true! Actually, almost zero emphasis is put on moral or
> religious teaching, and almost 100% of social teachings. The fact that you
> saw people discuss entry-by-troops all the time is only because it has
> recently been emphasized. But instead of leaving, you should have become a
> change-agent. It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
Contrary to what many have been surmising in response to my original post, it
wasn’t just the local Baha’i community and LSA that turned me off. It was also
the emphasis of the U.S. NSA and the UHJ on gaining converts and contributing to
the Baha’i Funds. It wasn’t simply that I didn’t receive spiritual nourishment.
Of course, as others have suggested, I could have buried my head in the “ocean” of
Baha’u’llah’s words and ignored the emphasis of the institutional Baha’i Faith.
What I objected to was the apparently general disregard for spiritual substance.
Of course, it’s possible that on the Isle of Skye in Scotland or in Papua New
Guinea, the community is very nurturing, spiritually, and doesn’t manifest the
rapacity that I encountered in Houston, Texas and in the messages of the NSA and
the UHJ.
> The hackneyed phrase “entry by troops” was
> > mindlessly and continuously repeated like a mantra. A goal was set by
> > my state's Bahai's on the number of firesides to be held by
> > Baha'u'llah's birthday. This rapacious attitude turned my stomach,
> > reminding me of Jehovah's Witnesses. I thought the Baha'i Faith was
> > tolerant toward other religions. Didn't this push for conversions imply
> > intolerance?
>
> Darrick: Who told you the Baha'i Faith was tolerant of other religions? You
> were misinformed. The true Baha'i teaching is that the Faith has the greatest
> Truth, and all must conform to this truth. The Faith is not Unitarianism. If
> you wanted a religion that teaches that "all religions are true" then you
> should become a Unitarian. The Faith actually teaches that "all religions
> _began_ true, but were corrupted, and the Faith is the latest Revelation of
> the One True Religion--uncorrupted". God has only one Truth. Jehovah's
> Witnesses believe they have it, but Baha'is believe they do. NO! Both don't
> cancel each other out. It is equally as probably that one is in fact True,
> while the other is less true. If Baha'u'llah was Who He said He was, then the
> Faith is the fulness of Truth; not the exclusiveness of Truth.
Yes, indeed. Here is just one more example of the way in which the real Baha’i
Faith differs from the version presented to prospective Baha’is.
> > For this reason, I looked forward to my first attendance at a
> > “deepening.” I thought, "Now at last I'll find some spiritual
> > substance." What did I find at the deepening? A videotape of a Baha’i
> > National Spiritual Assembly meeting, where every speaker to a man went
> > on and on about getting new members.
>
> Darrick: Again, the Baha'is in this country don't yet know _HOW_ to
> spiritually feed new Believers. But _this will change_, and is changing. The
> Faith is still in it's pioneer phase. The Faith in the U.S. has been very
> secularized and watered-down because it was invaded by tens of thousands of
> social-reform activists during the 30s to late 70s. These people tended to
> ignore the moral and religious teachings, and to overemphasize--again and
> again and again--the social teachings. Now, the need for converts is
> beginning to drown-out the overemphasis on social teachings. You _still_
> could have been spiritually fed in this Faith; but you need to "feed
> yourself" (get the Writings and study yourself). Some Baha'is today recognize
> that the Faith in this country is too "social-activist" and not enough
> "spirituality". This is changing, and you should have stayed and helped.
See the above. I purchased and read a virtual library of Baha’i writings,
included all four volumes of “The Revelation of Baha’u’llah.” I even bought a
book of selections from the Bab’s writings. Boy did that set me back a few
bucks! So I can say that I got a thorough soaking in the “ocean” of Baha’i
literature. But I didn’t see the point in staying, because it was clear to me
that the rapacity I mention above is now an integral part of the Faith.Let me make
a prediction here. As “entry by troops” becomes more and more remote as a
possibility, the institutions of the Baha’i Faith will become more desperate and
frantic in their recruiting efforts, thereby driving even more people away.
> > Oh, how could I forget those memorable feasts where a tape recorded
> > message would be played, usually, of course, on the subject either of
> > getting new members or contributing to the Baha’i Funds. I felt like I
> > was one of Charlie’s Angels. (Can’t you just imagine Bob Henderson,
> > lounging by the pool, sipping a (non-alcoholic) drink and dictating to
> > the tape recorder?)
>
> Darrick: The Mission of Baha'u'llah was to Unite Mankind. Why? Because the
> human race will end if it is not united. Thus, He becomes the Savior of the
> Human Species. But this collective salvation cannot be accomplished without
> the help of every Baha'i, and this means sacrifice; in time and money. For
> now, your own spiritual education and growth must be a personal private
> affair. All forces in the Faith are geared toward growth. Because if the
> Faith doesn't grow, then it can't conquer the world. Hopefully, some day
> soon, the Faith will emphasize the moral and spiritual principles in the
> meetings. In fact, plans have been drawn to do this, but won't be implemented
> until _after_ the 4-year Plan (i.e. 2001 at the earliest).
See my prediction above. 2001 will come and go without entry by troops. The
revolving door effect (experienced by yours truly) will continue to operate. The
more the Baha’i Faith tries to “conquer the world,” the less palatable and the
less tolerant and therefore the less inherently consistent it will seem.
Proselytism and tolerance don’t mix. (I’m using the English definition of
proselytism, not the superfluous Bahai-speak definition.)
> > I thought to myself: Are these people crazy? How in the world can
> > they expect to keep the new members that they do recruit if all that the
> > new members will encounter upon joining is an incessant demand to
> > “teach” and get new members?
>
> Darrick: Good point! You should have been spiritually fed. You should have
> been taught that you needed a spiritual conversion to Baha'u'llah; instead of
> joining just because you agreed with some of the Principles. Those who are
> not spiritually converted ("born-again") will not stand.
I was originally drawn to the Faith when I read the Hidden Words. I was much more
interested in the person and writings of Baha’u’llah than in the social
principles. Let me say something about the latter. You know, almost all of those
principles are generally accepted now. In fact, they’re rather passe. That makes
the Baha’i Faith appear like a fellow-traveler—it looks like a big case of “me
too”-ism. We all know racism is bad. Some Baha’is walk around telling people
this as if it’s a big revelation.When I detected flaws in the Baha’i institutions
and their actions, I had to revisit my initial assessment of Baha’u’llah. And I
changed my mind about him.
> Oh, and that’s another thing. I have to
> > laugh when I think back to what the “advance” literature said about
> > Baha’is not proselytizing. I discovered, alas too late, that there is a
> > particular and peculiar Baha’i definition of “proselytize,” which means
> > “to convert by force or threats.” Oh, I see. So the happy-talk about
> > not proselytizing meant, “Hey folks! We don’t convert by force!” Wow.
> > What an enticement. I found out that instead, Baha’is “teach.” That’s
> > like saying, “I didn’t abort my child. I terminated a pregnancy.”
>
> Darrick: If the Baha'is told you that we don't proselyte, they were using
> Shoghi Effendi's definition of the term. He defined it as "using coercion,
> threat, or force in teaching". Of course Baha'is seek converts. They want to
> convert the entire world. You should have known this.
There’s a big difference between wanting the whole world to convert and converting
the whole world.
> > In short, I found that the Baha’i Faith was the religious equivalent
> > of AmWay.
>
> Darrick: Actually, Scientology is the religious equivalent of AmWay. Baha'is
> don't expect personal gains by their sacrifices, but to help save the World
> from destruction; spiritually and physically.
What’s that about “teaching” being the greatest deed? I think a kind of spiritual
greed can come into play here. I recommend to you the book, Cutting through
Spiritual Materialism, by Chogyam Trungpa, as well as anything by Jiddu
Krishnamurti.
> > Then of course I found that lots of little omissions had been made
> > in introductory literature. They don’t tell you how many wives
> > Baha’u’llah had. Or that he was a midget (see my other post dated
> > today). Okay, that’s not fair (although it’s true -- didn't you know
> > that you were praying to a midget?).
>
> Darrick: Introductory literature is for the purpose of attracting souls. What
> does the fact that Baha'u'llah had three wives to do with attracting souls?
> Baha'is don't try to deny it, but it is something that has nothing to do with
> a person's salvation, or the salvation of mankind. The fact that Baha'u'llah
> was short (not a midget nor a dwarf) should make short people feel happy! It
> should make tall people feel humble (for a change). What does one's height
> have to do with one's spiritual stations anyway?
Height has nothing to do with Baha’u’llah’s claims, and everything to do with my
warped sense of humor. The number of Baha’u’llah’s wives, on the other hand, is
very disturbing to Western “seekers,” and I think most Baha’is know this. It
should be disclosed up front, to avoid disillusionment later. Another poster here
has pointed out that the Baha’i Faith teaches that Mohammed “really” taught that
one couldn’t have more than one wife. How, then, was Baha’u’llah acting in
accordance with Islamic law? I know, I know: because he was perfect. Still,
that’s not a very good example to set. I guess it’s just another one of those
“veils.”
> One “teaching” book by Gary
> > Matthews lauds the perspicacity of Baha’u’llah in writing that “every
> > star hath its planets,” omitting that he says immediately thereafter
> > “and every planet its creatures.” Stuff like that began to burn my ass
> > big time.
>
> Darrick: Every planet does have it's creature; sooner or later. Venus was once
> inhabited, and some day the Earth will look like Venus. Someday Mars will
> resemble the Earth. Billions of years from now, when the Sun expands, then the
> outer planets will congeal into Earth-like planets. Every star will have it's
> planets; but not all at the same time.
>
> > Contradictions began to emerge. I compared the “Tablet of the True
> > Seeker” in the Kitab-i-Iqan, which enjoins the independent investigation
> > of truth, with the dire, shrill threats hurled at unbelievers in the
> > Kitab-i-Aqdas and could only shake my head in wonder.
>
> Darrick: You are confusing "independent investigation of truth" with "every
> religion is true". This is not what Baha'u'llah taught. He taught that
> everyone should seek Truth regardless of their parentage, their geographical
> location, etc. But not everything is "Truth". For those who reject the
> Truth--after they have independently discovered it--then YES, there are
> eternal negative consequences.
Uh oh!
> There was so much
> > explaining and back-filling in Baha'i propaganda. For example, in the
> > Kitab-i-Aqdas, Baha'u'llah says that men can have two wives. Later,
> > Abdul Baha says that this meant men could only have one wife. Let the
> > mind games begin!
>
> Darrick: Baha'u'llah actually wrote "do not go beyond two". Now, did He mean:
> 1) You can marry no more than two women at the same time? 2) You can only
> marry twice (i.e. can only marry another women after the first is dead or
> divorced from you). 3) You can marry a second wife if the first one is
> incompacitated (i.e. crazy, or a total invalid). 4) You can have two wives,
> and as many concubines as you wish? 5) You can have two wives, but only if
> you treat them equally, and since you can't do it--because you are mere
> mortals--then you can only have one. His statement can be interpreted in any
> of the above ways. Since 'Abdu'l-Baha was His Interpreter, then He knew what
> Baha'u'llah meant. I personally believe (just my opinion) that Baha'u'llah
> allowed the marriage of a second wife if the first was infertile, or became
> incompacitated. A Baha'i husband is not allowed to put his seed into a
> surrogate; even by artificial insemination. But, again, this is only my
> opinion. This verse troubled me too. But, I can see the wisdom in it.
Whew. This is all too complicated for me.
> > Anyway, it quickly dawned on me that this religion was going nowhere
> > fast. Its stated objective of becoming a world religion and
> > establishing a world Baha’i government is ludicrous. It will never
> > happen.
>
> Darrick: Obviously, you signed the Declaration Card knowing _very_ little
> about the Faith!!! The _entire mission_ of Baha'u'llah was to form a World
> Commonwealth; so that mankind can avoid self-destruction. Why in the "world"
> did you join this religion? The Baha'is in this country teach people a few
> social-principles, and then have them sign a card and expect them to obey and
> understand Baha'u'llah. WHEN WILL THEY EVER LEARN?
>
> The early Christians expected Jesus (the real Jesus, not
> > Baha'u'llah-as-Jesus) to come back during their lifetimes; they were
> > wrong, and they're still waiting.
>
> Darrick: Jesus DID return in their own lifetimes! I suggest you look at the
> Preterist view of Christian history. I suggest you go to search engines on
> the Internet and type in "Preterist". Jesus returned in 70 A.D.; not in His
> physical body, but in His ethereal form; which can only be seen in visions.
Now you’re getting weird on me. Stop that!
> Baha'u'llah is not the return of Jesus, but the return of "Christ"; the Holy
> Spirit Who embodied Jesus from His baptism until His crucifixion.
That's the party line.
> Now the Bahai's are waiting for entry
> > by troops, the collapse of world civilization, and the triumphant
> > takeover of the world by Bahai's. It's not happening.
>
> Darrick: Many people doubted that the Soviet Union would fall for hundreds of
> years, if ever. This World System _will fall_. This may be only an economic
> collapse; which we may now be seeing the beginning of. It will fall; because
> God has says it will. When that happens, mankind will be humbled, and seek a
> divine system instead of a Humanist one.
>
> I don’t care how
> > many times Abdul Baha appears. In any case, he’s got lots of
> > competition from the Virgin Mary, the Ascended Masters, and little gray
> > aliens.
>
> Darrick: How do you know the Virgin Mary has not appeared? How do you know
> that Ascended Masters have not appeared? How do you know creatures from other
> systems have not visited here? Each has a purpose; not all of them divine.
You misread me here. I believe they do appear. That’s the point. The spiritual
world is a zoo. Actually, I know this from my own experience, but I won’t go into
that here, because y’all already think I’m crazy.
> > That brings me to a little metaphysical speculation. I'm sure there
> > have been apparitions of Abdul Baha, as well as amazing synchronicities
> > that Baha'is call "confirmations." But, folks, phenomena like this are
> > reported in all religions and spiritual paths.
>
> Darrick: I've never heard of Unitarians having them! There are Seers and
> visions in every major religion, and many of them have prophecied of
> Baha'u'llah.
Huh? Examples please. And I hope you've got more than that loony guy who founded
the Seventh Day Adventists.
> The world is awash in
> > reports of these types of things. Moreover, there has been a gang of
> > self-proclaimed god-men even in this century, from Reverend Moon to Adi
> > Da, each with their fanatical followers willing to follow the leader all
> > the way to martyrdom. This world, and the spiritual world, is a very
> > complicated and diverse place. In ways that we don't fully understand,
> > human beings can tap into spiritual realities and develop very real
> > psychic powers. In Hinduism, these are called "siddhis," and they've
> > been documented for several thousand years. They are not proof that
> > those possessed of them are worthy of worship. In fact, the spiritual
> > literature warns about the ego-inflation that can result from their
> > exercise. It seems to me that Baha'u'llah didn't heed that warning.
>
> Darrick: 'Abdu'l-Baha actually preached again "psychic powers", and never
> claimed to have them. All He had was the Holy Spirit to guide His
> interpretations of what His Father wrote. 'Abdu'l-Baha was so humble, that He
> refused to have people bow to Him. Baha'u'llah never practice Yoga or any
> Hindu practices. He did, however, miraculously heal people, but the Baha'is
> don't offer these things as proofs; since they are only proofs to those that
> witness them.
Yes, that’s a sensible position. It originally was one of the things that
attracted me to the Faith.
> > Anyway, I finally decided that I had to return my membership card to
> > Bob Henderson. Bob, if you’re reading this, I wish you all the best. I
> > assure you that I will continue to wash my feet every day, not only in
> > the summer, but all year round. And don’t forget: ENTRY BY TROOPS!
> > ENTRY BY TROOPS!
> >
> > Tim Mulligan
> > tmul...@central.uh.edu
>
> Darrick: Tim, I am sorry that the Baha'is in this country had you sign a card
> not knowing what you were getting into, and not having a testimony of
> Baha'u'llah. It was wrong and foolish of them, but you can't judge the Faith
> by it's stupid members, but by Baha'u'llah. I hope you will get to know Him,
> and His son, and not rely on what foolish Baha'is have told you (or failed to
> tell you). You have not rejected the Faith--you've never known it! All you
> have done is rejected what some ignorant and foolish Baha'is have told you. I
> hope you will reexamine the Faith; this time from the Sources, and not from
> the mouths of the American Believers.
Darrick, don’t pick on the people I encountered in the Faith. They were all kind
to me. (Except for a certain bigoted Pakistani psychiatrist who shall remain
nameless.) You see, I contacted them after reading about the Faith. And then
they kindly invited me to a fireside. At the fireside, I asked a lot of tough
questions, especially about evolution. During the evening, they marveled at the
extent of my knowledge about the faith, given that I had never even been to a
fireside before. You see, Darrick, I’m a librarian. I know how to find
information for myself. This shocked a lot of the Baha’is I met subsequent to
declaring, who would ask me, “Who brought you into the Faith?” and I would answer,
“Baha’u’llah.” It’s just that the introductory literature available in libraries
presents a more holistic picture of a religion than I actually encountered. The
one I encountered after attending feasts—and as you know, I could not attend a
feast until after I declared—was rapacious and vacuous.
> Darrick Evenson
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Thanks for your remarks.
Tim Mulligan
tmul...@central.uh.edu
Milissa Boyer Kafes
I've been thinking about your post for a bit, and now I'd like to respond.
I, too, have left the faith and I could relate to much of what you said.
Obviously, I was not wild about your midget comment, but hey, I'll let that
slide! I know it came from a sense of betrayal. I have great respect for
Baha'u'llah, giving the context of the time and places he lived. It has
been quite hard to see him *directly* and I am still trying.
> Well, it’s been a year since I left the Baha’i Faith after having
>been a member for only several months. I thought I would >commemorate the
return of my membership card by recounting why I >left.
I don't know if you are aware of this or not, but simply returning your card
and asking to be removed from the rolls is not quite enough. Unless you
specifically told them you did not believe in Baha'u'llah then you are still
officially a Baha'i, although your status is listed as inactive and you are
still counted as a Baha'i in their statistics.
>First, let me say that, with hindsight, I can’t imagine why I ever
>joined the faith. I had sworn off religion, but something in the
>advance literature (the pamphlets, the introductory books) seemed >to
>superficially allay concerns I had that the multiplicity of religions
>signaled their invalidity. I thought to myself, "Here at last is a
>tolerant religion that reconciles the differences. They say they don't
>proselytize, and they affirm the truth of all the great religions."
Well, most of the *promotional* literature is very well written! Who is
their right minds would be against world peace, equality and unity? The
fact that you found such ideas appealing says well of you and reflects your
values.
>I had some lingering doubts, especially regarding the inclusion of >Buddha,
a man who refused to discuss metaphysics and who >described Brahman as
deluded about his divinity, as a >Manifestation of God. Also, the Baha'i
exegesis of the New >Testament was tortured to say the least. But I
>jumped in anyway.
While I don't know anything about Buddhism, I agree with your assessment of
the Baha'i approach to the Bible. Interestingly, the Christian
interpretation of the Hebrew Bible (ie Old Testament) is equally bad and
follows a similar hermeneutic. And I never understood why Baha'is bother to
prove anything about Baha'u'llah using Buddhist or Bible
scriptures.....according to Shoghi Effendi the Bible is full of errors! And
according to 'Abdu'l-Baha the Buddhists' scriptures are not authentic at
all.
> When I got to participate in actual feasts as a declared Baha’i, the
>picture changed. There was almost zero attention paid to the >spiritual
formation of members, especially new members. The >unrelenting focus was on
getting new members. The hackneyed >phrase “entry by troops” was mindlessly
and continuously repeated >like a mantra. A goal was set by my state's
Bahai's on the number >of firesides to be held by Baha'u'llah's birthday.
This rapacious >attitude turned my stomach, reminding me of Jehovah's
Witnesses. >I thought the Baha'i Faith was tolerant toward other religions.
Didn't >this push for conversions imply intolerance?
I have found most Feasts to be completely and utterly boring. I suspect
that the reason there is such a push for new members is due to the fact that
the faith is practically dead in this country.
>For this reason, I looked forward to my first attendance at a
>“deepening.” I thought, "Now at last I'll find some spiritual
>substance." What did I find at the deepening? A videotape of a >Baha’i
National Spiritual Assembly meeting, where every speaker to >a man went on
and on about getting new members.
Fortunately, I have been to some good deepenings. When its done correctly
it can be a wonderful experience.
>Oh, how could I forget those memorable feasts where a tape >recorded
message would be played, usually, of course, on the >subject either of
getting new members or contributing to the Baha’i >Funds. I felt like I was
one of Charlie’s Angels. (Can’t you just >imagine Bob Henderson, lounging
by the pool, sipping a (non->alcoholic) drink and dictating to the tape
recorder?)
It would help a lot if they would not make tapes at all, or at least do
something on another topic. But they are administrators, after all!
>I thought to myself: Are these people crazy? How in the world can
>they expect to keep the new members that they do recruit if all that >the
new members will encounter upon joining is an incessant >demand to “teach”
and get new members? Oh, and that’s another >thing. I have to laugh when I
think back to what the “advance” >literature said about Baha’is not
proselytizing. I discovered, alas too >late, that there is a particular and
peculiar Baha’i definition of
>“proselytize,” which means “to convert by force or threats.” Oh, I >see.
So the happy-talk about not proselytizing meant, “Hey folks! >We don’t
convert by force!” Wow. What an enticement. I found out >that instead,
Baha’is “teach.” That’s like saying, “I didn’t abort my >child. I
terminated a pregnancy.”
>
> In short, I found that the Baha’i Faith was the religious equivalent
>of AmWay.
I could never figure out what the no proselytizing bit meant either.
> Then of course I found that lots of little omissions had been made
>in introductory literature. They don’t tell you how many wives
>Baha’u’llah had. Or that he was a midget (see my other post dated
>today). Okay, that’s not fair (although it’s true -- didn't you know
>that you were praying to a midget?). One “teaching” book by Gary
>Matthews lauds the perspicacity of Baha’u’llah in writing that “every
>star hath its planets,” omitting that he says immediately thereafter
>“and every planet its creatures.” Stuff like that began to burn my ass
>big time.
Actually Baha'u'llah was made fun of in his own lifetime about his height,
although he technically wasn't a midget. And besides, you are right that
its not fair, as his height has really nothing to do with anything.
On the polygamous side, its true he was. One thing that helped me resolve
this problem was knowing that he had little control over it. He was married
the first time through an arranged marriage when he was only 17 and Navvab
was probably only 13-14. The second marriage was similar. The third wife
was later in life, and she was a nurse to his very ill first wife and he had
to marry her in order for her to be able to live in the household. Indeed,
these cultural practices and restraints are very bizarre to me! And imagine
what it was like for him to be married to women who did not love him and who
he didn't love. Polygamy is a bad idea! Interestingly, an unpublished
Tablet of Baha'u'llah's was posted to Talisman where he laments this
situation and wishes he could have gotten out of it! I guess its comforting
to know he didn't enjoy it! Also interesting is how in the Aqdas he
abolishes the Islamic practice of having to marry a woman in your household
simply because she works for you.
About every planet having its creatures, I suppose that depends on how you
define creatures: single cell organisms or humans? But I am still working
on this one.
>Contradictions began to emerge. I compared the “Tablet of the True
>Seeker” in the Kitab-i-Iqan, which enjoins the independent >investigation
of truth, with the dire, shrill threats hurled at unbelievers >in the
Kitab-i-Aqdas and could only shake my head in wonder. >There was so much
explaining and back-filling in Baha'i >propaganda. For example, in the
Kitab-i-Aqdas, Baha'u'llah says >that men can have two wives. Later, Abdul
Baha says that this >meant men could only have one wife. Let the mind games
begin!
I really don't understand why the harshness of part of the Writings. Some
say its hyperbole, I don't know.
The conflict between the Aqdas allowing two wives and 'Abdu'l-Baha mandating
only one took me awhile to figure out. As you know, Islamic law allowed
four wives and any number of concubines. Well, the guy whose letter the
Aqdas is a response to wrote explaining that he already had two wives and
asked Baha'u'llah if it was ok to have four. This explains why Baha'u'llah
worded the way he did: don't get more than the two you already have and you
would be better off with only one. And believe me, he was speaking from
personal experience here! 'Abd'ul-Baha's comments reflect Baha'u'llah's
intention and therefore don't conflict with the Aqdas. This part of the
Aqdas was in response to a particular question and Baha'u'llah was not
allowing Baha'is today to have 2 wives.
>Anyway, it quickly dawned on me that this religion was going
>nowhere fast. Its stated objective of becoming a world religion and
>establishing a world Baha’i government is ludicrous. It will never
>happen. The early Christians expected Jesus (the real Jesus, not
>Baha'u'llah-as-Jesus) to come back during their lifetimes; they were
>wrong, and they're still waiting. Now the Bahai's are waiting for entry
>by troops, the collapse of world civilization, and the triumphant
>takeover of the world by Bahai's. It's not happening. I don’t care
>how many times Abdul Baha appears. In any case, he’s got lots of
>competition from the Virgin Mary, the Ascended Masters, and little >gray
aliens.
I think the biggest problem I have with the idea of a world religion (beyond
its unlikeliness) is that it is not desirable! No one religion can satisfy
everyone, human beings are just too different and relate to divinity in
multiple ways. Its just unnatural and history has shown that for one
religion to dominate requires force of some kind, whether physical, economic
or social.
Btw, I think the little gray aliens are winning out, even over the Virgin
Mary, if one goes by number of sightings!
>That brings me to a little metaphysical speculation. I'm sure there
>have been apparitions of Abdul Baha, as well as amazing
>synchronicities
>that Baha'is call "confirmations." But, folks, phenomena like this are
>reported in all religions and spiritual paths. The world is awash in
>reports of these types of things. Moreover, there has been a gang of
>self-proclaimed god-men even in this century, from Reverend Moon to Adi
>Da, each with their fanatical followers willing to follow the leader all
>the way to martyrdom. This world, and the spiritual world, is a very
>complicated and diverse place. In ways that we don't fully understand,
>human beings can tap into spiritual realities and develop very real
>psychic powers. In Hinduism, these are called "siddhis," and they've
>been documented for several thousand years. They are not proof that
>those possessed of them are worthy of worship. In fact, the spiritual
>literature warns about the ego-inflation that can result from their
>exercise. It seems to me that Baha'u'llah didn't heed that warning.
While I agree with the most of this paragraph, I do have to disagree with
the last sentence. Baha'u'llah had his vision, you know, in a pit while in
a prison at a time when he quite reasonably thought he was going to be
killed. Granted, this does not make it true, but I think he does exonerate
him from the concept of an ego trip.
I like to think about it this way. Baha'u'llah could have had a very cushy
life. He was from a wealthy and well-placed family. He could have lived in
a big mansion with hordes of servants, 4 wives and 365 concubines, one for
each day of the year! Proclaiming oneself a prophet in those days was not
the fast track to success. Granted this does not make his claim true, but I
think it means that he sincerely believed he was a manifestation. He could
have been sincerely wrong, of course, but I believe he really believed what
he said. If he simply suffered from ego problems, he could have found easier
(and more fruitful) avenues to bolster it.
>Anyway, I finally decided that I had to return my membership card to
>Bob Henderson. Bob, if you’re reading this, I wish you all the best. I
>assure you that I will continue to wash my feet every day, not only in
>the summer, but all year round. And don’t forget: ENTRY BY >TROOPS! ENTRY
BY TROOPS!
I'm glad to hear you wash your feet, or else you would be kinda stinky. Of
course, if you live in the desert where water is a precious commodity and
obtaining it is difficult, you might be less critical of this teaching.
This is an example of a teaching that made sense in its original context.
There are things that strike us as strange, and then there are things that
truly deserve criticism. Washing your feet is the former, the emphasis on
entry by troops is the latter!
Sorry for such a long response, but I wanted to respond to every point you
made. I am not trying to convince you of anything really. Its just that I
feel its important to understand that Baha'ullah was truly a great person
who had high ideals and we shouldn't blame him if his followers have messed
it up.
Peace
Milissa Boyer Kafes
mbk...@bestweb.net
kate_mcco...@my-dejanews.com
In reference to your response to Mr. Mulligan, “Why I left”
>> Well, it’s been a year since I left the Baha’i Faith after having
>>been a member for only several months. I thought I would >commemorate the
>>return of my membership card by recounting why I >left.
>I don't know if you are aware of this or not, but simply returning your card
>and asking to be removed from the rolls is not quite enough. Unless you
>specifically told them you did not believe in Baha'u'llah then you are still
>officially a Baha'i, although your status is listed as inactive and you are
>still counted as a Baha'i in their statistics.
I have never had possession of either my card, nor of my children’s. They
were either given to or taken by my Ex-husband from the moment they were
created. In addition, I have never specifically told anyone in the Baha’i
community in Alaska that I did not believe in Baha’u’llah. Although, I don’t
much care about ‘status’ symbols, or the Baha’i inability to keep accurate
and meaningful statistics, your statement seems to imply some form of
contract that Baha’is honor as binding in some way.
I ask two simple questions then:
1) Do members (active or not) have access to whatever code of regulations
Spiritual Assemblies are supposed to adhere to, as well as any other rules
imposed upon the membership? (without having to read some antiquated
writings about multiple wives and feet washing)
2) If so, how could I obtain this information?
Thank you,
Kathleen R. Bodi,
formerly of Juneau, Alaska
Saman Ahmadi
> 1) Do members (active or not) have access to whatever code of
> regulations
> Spiritual Assemblies are supposed to adhere to, as well as any other
> rules
> imposed upon the membership? (without having to read some antiquated
> writings about multiple wives and feet washing)
>
> 2) If so, how could I obtain this information?
>
> Thank you,
>
The book, published by the National Spiritual Assembly of the
Baha'is of the United States is entitled "Develeoping Distinctive
Baha'i Communities; A Guideline for Spiritual Assemblies".
You can order from the Baha'i Distribution Service - I don't
have the phone number handy, but they are located in
Tennessee.
Also, if someone is dissatisfied with a decision of a Local
Spiritual Assembly, he/she can appeal the decision to the
National Spiritual Assembly. If still unsatisfied, the decision
can be appealed to the Universal House of Justice.
-saman