Baha'i Apologetics Anyone?

[Popeyesays]

Uh-huh, not arguing with that. My initial post was that any religion that makes use of such a thing does so because it is inherently flawed and thus requires it. A religion with perfect internal consistency and logic would not require any apologetics.

I'm with Bruce here. You've committed a logical gloss here.:yes:

Please note that all religions may be from God or not, but all religions are IMPERFECT reflections of God because men are men, not God.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Halcyon]

Meaning you no offense, NONSENSE!!

But since you're so insistent that any existence of an apologetic implies a necessarily defective religion, I invite you to demonstrate where such supposed flaws exist in the Baha'i Faith! I am most interested to hear this.

Why?

It is simple logic that if a statement or belief is disputed to the extent that it requires an actual defense, rather than simply being re-taught, it is because such a belief is inherently illogical or flawed, or both.

But since you're so insistent I'll go with one of the most obvious problems;
Maitreya will not return until Shakyamuni Buddha's entire corpus of teachings is not only corrupted, but completely forgotten. Bahá'u'lláh claimed to be Maitreya despite the fact that we still have all of Buddha's teachings, sure there may have been many additions and some might say corruptions, but the Four Noble Truths and the Eight-fold Path stand complete in all traditions irrespective of their sectarian beliefs.

Now, I'm fine with you believing that Bahá'u'lláh was Maitreya, doesn't concern me at all. But since you're now going to have to jump through some pretty poorly constructed hoops in an attempt to gel Buddhist "prophecy" with your own beliefs is just going exemplify my opinion on apologetics.

 

[Popeyesays]

"It is simple logic that if a statement or belief is disputed to the extent that it requires an actual defense, rather than simply being re-taught, it is because such a belief is inherently illogical or flawed, or both."

Define 're-taght'and set some kind of demarcation between 're-taught' and 'actual defense'.

Another way of looking at something, IS an 'actual defense'. Prove that it is logically consistent to draw the distinction where you draw it.

I think it's a false distinction; but I'm willing to hear you prove you contention, which is at the moment no more than a 'bald-faced assertion'.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Popeyesays]

Why?

It is simple logic that if a statement or belief is disputed to the extent that it requires an actual defense, rather than simply being re-taught, it is because such a belief is inherently illogical or flawed, or both.

But since you're so insistent I'll go with one of the most obvious problems;
Maitreya will not return until Shakyamuni Buddha's entire corpus of teachings is not only corrupted, but completely forgotten. Bahá'u'lláh claimed to be Maitreya despite the fact that we still have all of Buddha's teachings, sure there may have been many additions and some might say corruptions, but the Four Noble Truths and the Eight-fold Path stand complete in all traditions irrespective of their sectarian beliefs.

Now, I'm fine with you believing that Bahá'u'lláh was Maitreya, doesn't concern me at all. But since you're now going to have to jump through some pretty poorly constructed hoops in an attempt to gel Buddhist "prophecy" with your own beliefs is just going exemplify my opinion on apologetics.

It is far beyond Bruce's grasp or mine to get you to interpret anything.

As to the claim. The actual wording is this:

"
Having surrendered unreservedly to God’s summons, He was equally in no doubt about the role which He had been called upon to play in human history. As the Manifestation of God to the age of fulfillment, He is the one promised in all the scriptures of the past, the “Desire of all nations,” the “King of Glory.” To Judaism He is “Lord of Hosts”; to Christianity, the Return of Christ in the glory of the Father; to Islam, the “Great Announcement”; to Buddhism, the Maitreya Buddha; to Hinduism, the new incarnation of Krishna; to Zoroastrianism, the advent of “Sháh-Bahrám.” 4 "

and the footnote is this:

"
4.God Passes By, pp. 94–96. [ Back To Reference]
and the source reads;
'
"He Who in such dramatic circumstances was made to sustain the overpowering weight of so glorious a Mission was none other than the One Whom posterity will acclaim, and Whom innumerable followers already recognize, as the Judge, the Lawgiver and Redeemer of all mankind, as the Organizer of the entire planet, as the Unifier of the children of men, as the Inaugurator of the long-awaited millennium, as the Originator of a new “Universal Cycle,” as the Establisher of the Most Great Peace, as the Fountain of the Most Great Justice, as the Proclaimer of the coming of age of the entire 94 human race, as the Creator of a new World Order, and as the Inspirer and Founder of a world civilization.
To Israel He was neither more nor less than the incarnation of the “Everlasting Father,” the “Lord of Hosts” come down “with ten thousands of saints”; to Christendom Christ returned “in the glory of the Father,” to Shí’ah Islám the return of the Imám Ḥusayn; to Sunní Islám the descent of the “Spirit of God” (Jesus Christ); to the Zoroastrians the promised Sháh-Bahrám; to the Hindus the reincarnation of Krishna; to the Buddhists the fifth Buddha.
In the name He bore He combined those of the Imám Ḥusayn, the most illustrious of the successors of the Apostle of God—the brightest “star” shining in the “crown” mentioned in the Revelation of St. John—and of the Imám ‘Alí, the Commander of the Faithful, the second of the two “witnesses” extolled in that same Book. He was formally designated Bahá’u’lláh, an appellation specifically recorded in the Persian Bayán, signifying at once the glory, the light and the splendor of God, and was styled the “Lord of Lords,” the “Most Great Name,” the “Ancient Beauty,” the “Pen of the Most High,” the “Hidden Name,” the “Preserved Treasure,” “He Whom God will make manifest,” the “Most Great Light,” the “All-Highest Horizon,” the “Most Great Ocean,” the “Supreme Heaven,” the “Pre-Existent Root,” the “Self-Subsistent,” the “Day-Star of the Universe,” the “Great Announcement,” the “Speaker on Sinai,” the “Sifter of Men,” the “Wronged One of the World,” the “Desire of the Nations,” the “Lord of the Covenant,” the “Tree beyond which there is no passing.” He derived His descent, on the one hand, from Abraham (the Father of the Faithful) through his wife Katurah, and on the other from Zoroaster, as well as from Yazdigird, the last king of the Sásáníyán dynasty. He was moreover a descendant of Jesse, and belonged, through His father, Mírzá Abbás, better known as Mírzá Buzurg—a nobleman closely associated with the ministerial circles of the Court of Fatḥ-‘Alí Sháh—to one of the most ancient and renowned families of Mázindarán. "

The words were written by Shoghi Effendi, not Baha'u'llah--though Shoghi Effendi did not provide a translation of the source he was using as a reference.

Shoghi Effendi was the second and LAST person to have been granted the right to interpret the writings.

I do not know what the original statement was, nor does anyone other than perhaps the scholars at he Research Department in Haifa. You can inquire there, questions are welcome from anyone.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Halcyon]

Define 're-taght'and set some kind of demarcation between 're-taught' and 'actual defense'.

Another way of looking at something, IS an 'actual defense'. Prove that it is logically consistent to draw the distinction where you draw it.

I think it's a false distinction; but I'm willing to hear you prove you contention, which is at the moment no more than a 'bald-faced assertion'.

I think the difference is fairly obvious pop, but I'll humour you.

If I were in conversation with someone and they contended that I believe the moon orbits the Earth, but that it does so on the end of a long piece of string, I would re-educate them in what I actually believe, that the moon orbits the Earth because of gravity, no string involved. This is an example of re-teaching a person who has been ill-informed, something that Mormons attempt to do on this site a lot, its not apologetics though because the person attacking them is not doing so with the correct information and such their argument does not need to be defended against, just rebutted.

Now say I met somebody who whole-heartedly believed the moon was pushed around its orbit by a giant invisible mouse. If I were so inclined I could attack this person's belief using a mixture of scientific understanding and common sense, the person would have to go on the defensive and use apologetics to re-interpret my evidence, or re-interpret the wording of his belief to fit my evidence - or he could choose to ignore my evidence altogether and dismiss my assertion as blasphemy, although that wouldn't be apologetics.
I understand his belief, I disagree with it and I can successfully attack it to the degree that he must come up with a counter-argument.

That's the difference between re-educating someone on what you actually believe and apologetics.

Having surrendered unreservedly to God’s summons, He was equally in no doubt about the role which He had been called upon to play in human history. As the Manifestation of God to the age of fulfillment, He is the one promised in all the scriptures of the past, the “Desire of all nations,” the “King of Glory.” To Judaism He is “Lord of Hosts”; to Christianity, the Return of Christ in the glory of the Father; to Islam, the “Great Announcement”; to Buddhism, the Maitreya Buddha; to Hinduism, the new incarnation of Krishna; to Zoroastrianism, the advent of “Sháh-Bahrám.

"He Who in such dramatic circumstances was made to sustain the overpowering weight of so glorious a Mission was none other than the One Whom posterity will acclaim, and Whom innumerable followers already recognize
***snip***
to the Hindus the reincarnation of Krishna; to the Buddhists the fifth Buddha.

Right, ok he claimed to be Maitreya. That's fine, if you want to believe that claim I'm not going to hold it against you.

However, if you tried to tell me that his claim in anyway fits with the actual Prophecy of Maitreya in an attempt to justify you faith to me, or convert me, then you'd have a problem on your hands because, much like this new Maitreya guy's claim violates the 1000 year injunction of your belief system, your Bahá’u’lláh's claim violates the signs and even the purpose of Maitreya's coming within Buddhism.
You'd need to resort to creative defense were it your intention to convince me of the correctness of your beliefs i.e. apologetics.
If Bahá’u’lláh's claim of being Maitreya were self evident, his claim would need no apologetic defense - hence my opinion that apologetics are evidence of a weakness within a religion's belief structure.

 

[Popeyesays]

I think the difference is fairly obvious pop, but I'll humour you.

If I were in conversation with someone and they contended that I believe the moon orbits the Earth, but that it does so on the end of a long piece of string, I would re-educate them in what I actually believe, that the moon orbits the Earth because of gravity, no string involved. This is an example of re-teaching a person who has been ill-informed, something that Mormons attempt to do on this site a lot, its not apologetics though because the person attacking them is not doing so with the correct information and such their argument does not need to be defended against, just rebutted.

Now say I met somebody who whole-heartedly believed the moon was pushed around its orbit by a giant invisible mouse. If I were so inclined I could attack this person's belief using a mixture of scientific understanding and common sense, the person would have to go on the defensive and use apologetics to re-interpret my evidence, or re-interpret the wording of his belief to fit my evidence - or he could choose to ignore my evidence altogether and dismiss my assertion as blasphemy, although that wouldn't be apologetics.
I understand his belief, I disagree with it and I can successfully attack it to the degree that he must come up with a counter-argument.

That's the difference between re-educating someone on what you actually believe and apologetics.


Right, ok he claimed to be Maitreya. That's fine, if you want to believe that claim I'm not going to hold it against you.

However, if you tried to tell me that his claim in anyway fits with the actual Prophecy of Maitreya in an attempt to justify you faith to me, or convert me, then you'd have a problem on your hands because, much like this new Maitreya guy's claim violates the 1000 year injunction of your belief system, your Bahá’u’lláh's claim violates the signs and even the purpose of Maitreya's coming within Buddhism.
You'd need to resort to creative defense were it your intention to convince me of the correctness of your beliefs i.e. apologetics.
If Bahá’u’lláh's claim of being Maitreya were self evident, his claim would need no apologetic defense - hence my opinion that apologetics are evidence of a weakness within a religion's belief structure.

As to material proofs I tend to agree. The mouse pushing the moon should be palpably evidential.

As to things which are not material either in words or evidence - things of spiritual nature - the distinction is meaningless. I'm sure you realize that.

As to the claim to be the Mitreya, I cannot argue about it first, because it is spritual in essence, and second, because I do not have the actual statement to ponder HOW to argue it. My belief that Shoghi Effendi has the authority to tell me that is the import of Baha'u'llah's words is not palpable as evidence to someone who does not give weight to Shoghi Effendi's authority, so I do not try.

I can find reference's to Zarathustra and the Shah Bahram, in translation. The reference to Maitreya Buddha is not translated to my knowledge.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Halcyon]

As to things which are not material either in words or evidence - things of spiritual nature - the distinction is meaningless. I'm sure you realize that.

I disagree.

For example, the LDS are often plagued on here by people ill-informed of the LDS belief system, the attackers launch into tirades with utterly false information concerning the nature of the LDS version of the afterlife, the Godhead, purpose of marriage etc i.e. entirely spiritual/philosophical subjects. These sorts of attacks don't warrant a defense, but they do warrant a re-education of the attacker in what the LDS actually do believe about these subjects.
Now, if a person well informed about LDS beliefs were to attack them on the nature of Christ or God, the priesthood etc then the LDS may need to mount an apologetic defense.

In theory, if a belief system were totally coherent and entirely lacking in illogical aspects or inconsistencies there would be nothing for a well-informed attacker to lock on to, and thus no reason for an apologetic defense. You must realise that?

As to the claim to be the Mitreya, I cannot argue about it first, because it is spritual in essence, and second, because I do not have the actual statement to ponder HOW to argue it.

OK, it was just an example in reply to a request, its fair enough if you don't have the resources at hand to respond - so long as you understand the gist of why I chose that example, with regard to the nature of Maitreya's coming within Buddhist cosmological understanding and as such its need for an apologetic response for anyone claiming to be Maitreya?

My belief that Shoghi Effendi has the authority to tell me that is the import of Baha'u'llah's words is not palpable as evidence to someone who does not give weight to Shoghi Effendi's authority, so I do not try.

Fair enough.

 

[Popeyesays]

I disagree.

For example, the LDS are often plagued on here by people ill-informed of the LDS belief system, the attackers launch into tirades with utterly false information concerning the nature of the LDS version of the afterlife, the Godhead, purpose of marriage etc i.e. entirely spiritual/philosophical subjects. These sorts of attacks don't warrant a defense, but they do warrant a re-education of the attacker in what the LDS actually do believe about these subjects.
Now, if a person well informed about LDS beliefs were to attack them on the nature of Christ or God, the priesthood etc then the LDS may need to mount an apologetic defense.

In theory, if a belief system were totally coherent and entirely lacking in illogical aspects or inconsistencies there would be nothing for a well-informed attacker to lock on to, and thus no reason for an apologetic defense. You must realise that?


OK, it was just an example in reply to a request, its fair enough if you don't have the resources at hand to respond - so long as you understand the gist of why I chose that example, with regard to the nature of Maitreya's coming within Buddhist cosmological understanding and as such its need for an apologetic response for anyone claiming to be Maitreya?


Fair enough.

Essentially, how Buddhists may or may not argue against looking at Buddhism from a Baha'i cosmologic point of view, does not upset me at all. They are welcome to their opinion or viewpoint, as long as I am welcome to mine.

Even Buddhists cannot agree on what Buddha intended as the original scripture probably never was written down in the first place, anymore than Jesus wrote the Gospels,

Regards,
Scott

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings.

I agree with Scott: Baha'u'llah never claimed to be Maitreya!

Shoghi Effendi said he held this station, but that doesn't alter the fact that you're incorrect about what Baha'u'llah stated.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Halcyon]

Greetings.

I agree with Scott: Baha'u'llah never claimed to be Maitreya!

Shoghi Effendi said he held this station, but that doesn't alter the fact that you're incorrect about what Baha'u'llah stated.

Peace,

Bruce

But the real point is that it doesn't matter that I was wrong about who said it now does it? Within the Baha'i faith it is believed that Baha'u'llah was Maitreya, correct?

If I am wrong about that then you must re-educate me, no apologetics necessary.

If I am right about that then you have just demonstrated precisely why I dislike apologetics and see it as a sign of weakness, that instead of addressing the Maitreya problem, you side-stepped it - another very common tactic used in apologetic arguments - if you can't come up with a re-interpretation, you flip the question back on the "attacker" in the hopes of making them look foolish and that they'll back off.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Oh, so now YOU are attacking ME because YOU made an error!

How cute! :-(

You will forgive me, I trust, if I'm neither impressed not interested.

Bruce

 

[Halcyon]

Oh, so now YOU are attacking ME because YOU made an error!

How cute! :-(

You will forgive me, I trust, if I'm neither impressed not interested.

Bruce

Bruce, you initiated the challenge;

But since you're so insistent that any existence of an apologetic implies a necessarily defective religion, I invite you to demonstrate where such supposed flaws exist in the Baha'i Faith! I am most interested to hear this.

I''ve already admitted I was wrong about who exactly made the claim, so I'll just re-word my question ever so slightly since who made the claim was of no actual importance to said question;

"Maitreya will not return until Shakyamuni Buddha's entire corpus of teachings is not only corrupted, but completely forgotten. It is claimed that Bahá'u'lláh was Maitreya despite the fact that we still have all of Buddha's teachings, sure there may have been many additions and some might say corruptions, but the Four Noble Truths and the Eight-fold Path stand complete in all traditions irrespective of their sectarian beliefs."

If you wish to go along with Pop's answer, that he doesn't have sufficient access to the information needed to respond, that is fine by me.

If you wish to use apologetics to defend it, as you initiated the challenge to do, then please go ahead.

If I am wrong, if it is not claimed by, or an official belief of the Baha'i Faith that Bahá'u'lláh was Maitreya, then I'll happily accept the re-education.

 

[zikr]

"Maitreya will not return until Shakyamuni Buddha's entire corpus of teachings is not only corrupted, but completely forgotten."

I’d personally like to know where you got that criterion from. I’m sure you’re well aware that it took 400 years for the followers of the Buddha to put his words into writing. In other words, his teachings were transmitted from generation to generation solely by word of mouth. Now, you can imagine what could have happened to his original words over the course of four centuries. Thus, there is really no way for us to know if the criterion to which you’re referring was really issued from the mouth of the Buddha.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

The Baha'i Faith does indeed accept the status of Gautama Buddha, but at the same time it points out that the teachings you cite are unreliable.

I quote (and the second quote is scriptural):

“Having surrendered unreservedly to God’s summons, [Baha’u’llah] was equally in no doubt about the role which He had been called upon to play in human history. As the Manifestation of God to the age of fulfillment, He is the one promised in all the scriptures of the past, the ‘Desire of all nations,’ the ‘King of Glory.’ To Judaism He is ‘Lord of Hosts’; to Christianity, the Return of Christ in the glory of the Father; to Islam, the ‘Great Announcement’; to Buddhism, the Maitreya Buddha; to Hinduism, the new incarnation of Krishna; to Zoroastrianism, the advent of ‘Sháh-Bahrám.’“
-- God Passes By, pp. 94-96

“Buddha also established a new religion, and Confucius renewed morals and ancient virtues, but their institutions have been entirely destroyed. The beliefs and rites of the Buddhists and Confucianists have not continued in accordance with their fundamental teachings. The founder of Buddhism was a wonderful soul. He established the Oneness of God, but later the original principles of His doctrines gradually disappeared, and ignorant customs and ceremonials arose and increased....”
-- Some Answered Questions, p. 165

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Halcyon]

I’d personally like to know where you got that criterion from. I’m sure you’re well aware that it took 400 years for the followers of the Buddha to put his words into writing. In other words, his teachings were transmitted from generation to generation solely by word of mouth. Now, you can imagine what could have happened to his original words over the course of four centuries. Thus, there is really no way for us to know if the criterion to which you’re referring was really issued from the mouth of the Buddha.

But equally there is no reason to trust the teachings of a man born 2,300 years after the death of the Buddha over the teachings of Buddhists, is there?

The Baha'i Faith does indeed accept the status of Gautama Buddha, but at the same time it points out that the teachings you cite are unreliable.

“Buddha also established a new religion, and Confucius renewed morals and ancient virtues, but their institutions have been entirely destroyed. The beliefs and rites of the Buddhists and Confucianists have not continued in accordance with their fundamental teachings. The founder of Buddhism was a wonderful soul. He established the Oneness of God, but later the original principles of His doctrines gradually disappeared, and ignorant customs and ceremonials arose and increased....”

So your argument is that Buddhist teachings are wrong because your founder or his official interpreters say so?

Like I said before, I'm fine with you believing that.

It's just that if you're whole argument boils down to "I'm right because I say you're wrong", it just seems utterly pointless to even make such an argument.

I think I'm gonna step out of this one, if you can't understand why I think apologetics is pointless and weak by now I don't see any point in continuing. But thanks for the discussion anyway.

 

[zikr]

But equally there is no reason to trust the teachings of a man born 2,300 years after the death of the Buddha over the teachings of Buddhists, is there?

I think if that Prophet who came two millennia after the Buddha had people write down the revelation as he was receiving it from God, that would make it more authentic compared to the revelation being passed down orally from generation to generation for 400 years before it was finally put down into writing.

For instance, Bahá'u'lláh had his own amanuensis (secretary) - Aqa Jan Khadem - who recorded Bahá'u'lláh’s revelation as he was receiving it from God. That is, Bahá'u'lláh would say the things that his visions of the Maiden (our Manifestation of the Holy Spirit, commensurate to the dove in Christianity) conveyed and Aqa Jan Khadem would write everything down word for word. The words Khadem wrote down were then later showed to Bahá'u'lláh to ascertain their authenticity, and they were later transcribed and compiled into writings.

Oh, I’m still curious about where you got that “Buddhist prophecy”.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Precisely, Zikr!

Baha'u'llah either personally wrote or dictated and then specifically vetted 100% of His Writings!


And given that we have the manuscripts for the entireity of the 200 volumes of Baha'i scriptures, this makes their pedigree far more reliable than older scriptures!

For anyone who accepts Baha'u'llah's status this is therefore never even a question, let alone an issue! And for anyone who doesn't, fine: that's his privelege (and IOV his loss).

Best regards,

Bruce

 

[Halcyon]

Oh, I’m still curious about where you got that “Buddhist prophecy”.

The prophecy of Maitreya can be found in the scripture of all Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana sects, its pretty universal, just like the Four Noble Truths and Eight-fold Path - evidence in itself that Maitreya's coming is as yet unnecessary.

 

[YmirGF]

Baha'u'llah either personally wrote or dictated and then specifically vetted 100% of His Writings!

So, all you have is that Baha'u'llah was good with what he himself said. That is profoundly generous of him. Is this supposed to bolster the authenticity? :cover:

And given that we have the manuscripts for the entireity of the 200 volumes of Baha'i scriptures, this makes their pedigree far more reliable than older scriptures!

Are you saying that because Buddha and Christ did not have huge enough egos to hire personal secretaries, who wrote down their every utterance, that the resulting scriptures are somehow less authentic than those of the Baha'i's?

For anyone who accepts Baha'u'llah's status this is therefore never even a question, let alone an issue! And for anyone who doesn't, fine: that's his privelege (and IOV his loss).

That is all very well Bruce, but it does ring a bit hollow. Curiously one would think that the 200+ volumes would seal his reputation as being a Prophet of "god" once and for all and yet you still have people like me who are underwhelmed by his thinking. Personally, I have little doubt that Baha'u'llah believed every word that he wrote, orated or vetted, it is just that I don't think a lot of his thinking was all that believable to begin with. It is of little importance how loud the choir sings praises if the listener remains unmoved.

The only reason I mention this is that for decades I personally felt that if people did not understand me that was their loss, not mine. However, over time, I have changed my tune, as I now understand that if people don't understand me then there is something faulty in my method of delivery. It isn't their loss, you see, it is my failure. Get the point?

 

[Adib]

The prophecy of Maitreya can be found in the scripture of all Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana sects, its pretty universal, just like the Four Noble Truths and Eight-fold Path - evidence in itself that Maitreya's coming is as yet unnecessary.

I'm not doubting this and I apologize if I sound punctilious, but could I please have the exact quotation with the source for this prophecy?

So, all you have is that Baha'u'llah was good with what he himself said. That is profoundly generous of him. Is this supposed to bolster the authenticity? :cover:

Baha'u'llah's checking back with Khadem was for clarification purposes. In regards to what Baha'u'llah himself wrote, I don't understand what would be wrong with him reading over and affirming what we believe to be a revelation as opposed to not doing that at all. So yes, checking his contents once as opposed to not checking them at all would ensure some authenticity.

Are you saying that because Buddha and Christ did not have huge enough egos to hire personal secretaries, who wrote down their every utterance, that the resulting scriptures are somehow less authentic than those of the Baha'i's?

At the time of Buddha, oral transmission was the norm - things were not generally written down by scribes.

As for Christ, the reason why his disciples didn't put his words into writings was because, time and again, he emphasized that he had many things to say but that he would say those things when he came back (parousia). Therefore, many of his disciples got the impression that his Second Coming was going to occur within their own lifetimes. That's why they themselves did not write down Christ's words. It was only after many decades had already passed that they wrote down whatever they could remember, after realizing that Jesus had not returned by that time.

The fact that Baha'u'llah had a secretary has nothing to do with pomp or ego; it's a matter of ensuring authenticity for his followers in the coming centuries. People generally want to be able to refer to a resource that they can consider reliable, and it's especially convenient if those reliable materials were either written by the prophet himself or someone who was there and dictating the words as the prophet was talking.