Baha'is promoting ideas and interests contrary to those of their supreme council

[siti]

How can they know which one is the real Bahai Faith, and which one is not?

But you're still working on the assumption that only yours is "real" and the others are "fake". How can you possibly know that?

PS - Actually you can "know" that - but only for yourself...you cannot know that the faith of another person is fake.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

But you're still working on the assumption that only yours is "real" and the others are "fake". How can you possibly know that?

PS - Actually you can "know" that - but only for yourself...you cannot know that the faith of another person is fake.

It is easy to know. Bahai Faith is established based on the writings of Bahaullah. All we need to do is, to compare it. It is like building a boat with exact sizes, shape, material. Bahaullah defined the design of the boat. Now we know what boat is the boat of Bahaullah from its specifications.

 

[siti]

It is easy to know. Bahai Faith is established based on the writings of Bahaullah. All we need to do is, to compare it. It is like building a boat with exact sizes, shape, material. Bahaullah defined the design of the boat. Now we know what boat is the boat of Bahaullah from its specifications.

Its really hard to get through sometimes - and I don't see how this attitude is going to serve the cause of "unity"...what you are saying is equivalent to saying that if the boat that I make does not correspond exactly to the design prescribed by...whoever...it isn't really a boat at all. Clearly that is absurd. So is your contention that anyone whose Baha'i faith does not exactly correspond to your interpretation of Baha'u'llah's writings (etc.) is not a real Baha'i faith. If you guys can't even accept a different interpretation of your own beliefs, how are you ever going to accept the beliefs of the altogether different religions that you hope to "unite"? I just don't get it - this part, I just don't get.

 

[Dawnofhope]

@adrian I'm still not sure whether or not a view that I've put forward appears to you to contradict or undermine the provisions of the Covenant, and if so, whether or not you're agreeing with me to follow the advice of the House of Justice for what do about it. If so, then I need more help to understand how you think that what I've said violates the provisions of the Covenant. Does what I've said look to you like disobeying the House of Justice, rebelling against it, or contending with it? If not, then can you think of anything else to say, to help me understand how anything I've said looks to you like contradicting or undermining the provisions of the Covenant?

To put all my cards on the table, I started this thread to see what you would do if you saw me doing something that you disagree with, enough to want to discuss it with me. I thought that watching what you do might help me know what to do if I disagree with something you do, enough to want to discuss it with you. Now I'm not sure how much I'll learn from this, because I haven't seen anything you're doing as a Covenant issue.

ETA: It does give me some new ideas though.

Hi @Jim , you tagged the wrong person above. Don’t forget to put the numbers 009 after my name

I did wonder if you were wanting to discuss this issue with Baha’is or even just one or two Baha’is in particular on RF. Now I know.

I don’t recall using the word Covenant in this thread. I mentioned crossing a line though.

Now you mention the covenant, I’m curious what it means to you. What it means to me is following Bahá’u’lláh. That extends of course to Abdul-Baha, the Guardian and the Universal House of Justice.

Your OP mentions promoting ideas that contradicts Baha’i Teachings. Do you think some of the Baha’i Teachings are wrong? Perhaps it’s our understanding of them?

 

[Jim]

@adrian009 Let's go back to this:

There are certainly limits to freedom of speech as with any faith. The Baha'i writings have much to say about freedom of speech as does the Universal House of Justice. Of course if you feel free to speak againt the Universal House of Justice about gay marriage then you will ignore what they say about the limits on free speech too.

Individual Rights and Freedoms—The Universal House of Justice

In practice its extremely difficult to lose your membership in the Baha'i Faith. The rare instances I've seen it happening concerned one or two who had been criticising the Baha'i administration for years on the internet as well as promoting their own contradictory understanding of the Faith. Exhaustive efforts to correct their muisuderstandings had failed. Then most who do cross the line as you do, nothing happens. Further there's no 'shunning' of those who have lost their membership let alone those who dissent.

It isn't clear to me from the wording if you thought that I was speaking against the House of Justice about gay marriage, but I don't think that I am. First of all, just now in a search I didn't find anything in any message from the House of Justice about "gay marriage," or anything about same-sex marriage at all. I haven't seen anything in the writings of Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi or the House of Justice that looks to me like a prohibition against two women or two men performing some kind of ritual or making some kind of agreement, and calling it "marriage." What I see is that it would be impossible to impose all the Baha'i marriage laws on a same-sex couple, and/or wrong to try, so no same-sex marriage can ever be certified as a "Baha'i" marriage. None of that has anything to do with anyone's sexual orientation.

I thought that the line you thought I was crossing was into breaking the Covenant. If it wasn't that, what line did you think I was crossing? I wish you would tell me. Quoting from one of my posts isn't telling me what line you thought I was crossing. Do you mean that you think that what I said disqualifies me from membership? If so, I disagree, and I would love to discuss it with you, but as I understand it you're refusing to have any discussion with me about any of our disagreements.

 

[Jim]

@adrian009 It isn't clear to me what you were trying to say about what I said. I don't know if you think that promoting those ideas disqualifies a person for membership, or you think that the mere fact of saying that it isn't wrong for people to do that disqualifies me from membership, or what.

I'll give an example of what I mean. I'm not sure that will do any good, but it might. I don't even know what people think we should do when they denounce us for not allowing gay marriage. If they think that we're still interfering in those marriages, or excluding people because of them, I would like to see some stories of that happening in the last ten years. Anyway, if that's what they mean, I agree that we shouldn't be trying at all to regulate same-sex marriages, or making them break up before they can join the faith. If they want same-sex marriages to be certified as "Baha'i" marriages, I disagree with that, as I explained in another post. If nothing else, it would be physically impossible for any same-sex couple to consummate the marriage.

For an example of someone who disagrees with the House of Justice about Baha'i marriage being only for a man and a woman, I'll consider someone who thinks that a same sex marriage should be certified as a Baha'i marriage, if it conforms in every way possible to the marriage laws. Personally I disagree with that, but I'll consider what I might do if I thought that it would be better for Baha'u'llah's purposes, and in accordance with His prescriptions, to do that. I might think that possibly the reason that other Baha'is don't see that is because of prejudice against gays, and I would try to help change that, in all the ways that I try to help change other popular attitudes and behavior. I might also try to spread my view among Baha'is in the ways that Abdu'l-Baha advises us to teach the Faith where there is opposition to it, one heart at a time, what we used to call "each one teach one." We even had a song about it.

"Each one teach one, scatter through the land.
Together individually, reach the heart of man.
Each one teach one, watch our numbers grow.
If each would teach, we'd have one world for Baha'u'llah."

That's an example of what I might do if I disagreed with the House of Justice about Baha'i marriage being only for a man and a woman. Not only do I think that would not be wrong, I would consider it a responsibility, and a part of following Baha'u'llah.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That's an example of what I might do if I disagreed with the House of Justice about Baha'i marriage being only for a man and a woman. Not only do I think that would not be wrong, I would consider it a responsibility, and a part of following Baha'u'llah.

Jim, one can not disagree with the Universal House of Justice. Abiding by their decisions and guidance is following the Covernant of Baha'u'llah. It is our most important obligation, above all other acts of Faith.

In saying that, if one does dissagree, one can pursue further clarification through the right channels.

Regards Tony

 

[Jim]

Jim, one can not disagree with the Universal House of Justice.

I'm not sure how you mean that, Tony. If you mean that it’s wrong to campaign against its actions or policies, I agree. If you mean that it’s wrong to disagree with anything that it says about anything, I disagree with you. That's the whole point of this thread. That's a part of popular Baha'i thinking, at least among some of the most visible Baha'is in Internet discussions, that I think needs to go, and I think part of the shackles that the House of Justice says are preventing the religious spirit from bringing to bear the healing influence of which it is capable.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I'm not sure how you mean that, Tony. If you mean that we shouldn't campaign against its actions or policies, I agree. If you mean that we can't disagree with anything that it says about anything, I disagree with you. That's the whole point of this thread. That's a part of popular Baha'i thinking, at least among some of the most visible Baha'is in Internet discussions, that I think needs to go, and I think part of the shackles that the House of Justice says are preventing the religious spirit from bringing to bear the healing influence of which it is capable.

Jim I mean I am a strong beleiver that the Covenant of Baha'u'llah says we accept the decisions of the Universal House of Justice. This says it best;

Enactments of Universal House of Justice Are Inspired and Spiritual
As regards the need to have deductions made from the Writings to help in the formulation of the enactments of the House of Justice, there is the following text from the pen of 'Abdu'l-Bahá:

"Those matters of major importance which constitute the foundation of the Law of God are explicitly recorded in the Text, but subsidiary laws are left to the House of Justice. The wisdom of this is that the times never remain the same, for change is a necessary quality and an essential attribute of this world, and of time and place. Therefore the House of Justice will take action accordingly.
"Let it not be imagined that the House of Justice will take any decision according to its own concepts and opinions. God forbid! The Supreme House of Justice will take decisions and establish laws through the inspiration and confirmation of the Holy Spirit, because it is in the safekeeping and under the shelter and protection of the Ancient Beauty, and obedience to its decisions is a bounden and essential duty and an absolute obligation, and there is no escape for anyone.

"Say, O People: Verily the Supreme House of Justice is under the wings of your Lord, the Compassionate, the All-Merciful, that is under His protection, His care, and His shelter; for He has commanded the firm believers to obey that blessed, sanctified, and all-subduing body, whose sovereignty is divinely ordained and of the Kingdom of Heaven and whose laws are inspired and spiritual.

"Briefly, this is the wisdom of referring the laws of society to the House of Justice. In the religion of Islam, similarly, not every ordinance was explicitly revealed; nay not a tenth part of a tenth part was included in the Text; although all matters of major importance were specifically referred to, there were undoubtedly thousands of laws which were unspecified. These were devised by the divines of a later age according to the laws of Islamic jurisprudence, and individual divines made conflicting deductions from the original revealed ordinances. All these were enforced. Today this process of deduction is the right of the body of the House of Justice, and the deductions and conclusions of individual learned men have no authority, unless they are endorsed by the House of Justice. The difference is precisely this, that from the conclusions and endorsements of the body of the House of Justice whose members are elected by and known to the worldwide Bahá'í community, no differences will arise; whereas the conclusions of individual divines and scholars would definitely lead to differences, and result in schism, division, and dispersion. The oneness of the Word would be destroyed, the unity of the Faith would disappear, and the edifice of the Faith of God would be shaken."

More here - The Guardianship and the Universal House of Justice

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

@Jim
We have different understandings about some of the Baha’i Teachings you mentioned in your OP. Of course only God can truly judge another soul.

If a Baha'i promotes a teaching that is contrary to the Baha'i writings and claims himself to be right and the Baha'i writings wrong, then a line has been crossed IMHO.

In regards disagreeing with the Universal House of Justice, what do you mean by that? Do mean if you don't like or agree with their decision or the interpretations of the Guardian they elucidate, then you should disagree?

How about the claims of Baha'u'llah? What's the issue there?

Perhaps I'm having difficulty understanding your perspective.

 

[Jim]

Perhaps I'm having difficulty understanding your perspective.

Yes, I think so, but really, it would be unfair of me to expect you to understand it from what you've seen. Would you like to try to understand it? I don't really need you to understand it, for my purposes, but if you'd like to try, I'd like to help you if I can. I think now that I'll post some more examples of what I mean, and you've given me some ideas for that.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yes, I think so, but really, it would be unfair of me to expect you to understand it from what you've seen. Would you like to try to understand it? I don't really need you to understand it, for my purposes, but if you'd like to try, I'd like to help you if I can. I think now that I'll post some more examples of what I mean, and you've given me some ideas for that.

I was on talisman and watched a whole drama with Alison Marshall unfold in my community back in 2000. It has a similar feel with all the same issues @Jim.

Infallability of the Universal House of Justice and no woman members, homosexuality, Baha'i scholarship,and the nuances of the scope of authority of the Universal House of Justice.

If that's what you believe then it doesn't bother me. Its not what I believe. We just agree to disagree as civilised human beings do.

 

[Jim]

I've was on talisman and watched a whole drama with Alison Marshall unfold in my community back in 2000. It has a similar feel with all the same issues @Jim.

Infallability of the Universal House of Justice, no women, homosexuality, Baha'i scholarship,and the nuances of the scope of authority of the Universal House of Justice.

If that's what you believe then it doesn't bother me. Its not what I believe. We just agree to disagree as civilised human beings do.

I don't have issues with any of that. My issue is with people thinking that there's something wrong with Baha'is openly disagreeing with the House of Justice about those issues, and promoting their views about them. I think now that I'll go through those issues one by one, and discuss what I might do if I disagreed with the House of Justice about them. I've already done that for the issue of same-sex marriage. Actually it isn't really about disagreement with the House of Justice, so maybe I should stop framing it that way. It's really about promoting views that are stigmatized in popular Baha'i thinking. That includes views that in popular thinking are contrary to the views of the House of Justice. Part of the strategy I would use would always be the same: Follow Abdu'l-Baha's advice about teaching the faith where there is opposition to it.

I think that we all have a responsibility to promote whatever ideas and interests we think are best for the world, without confining ourselves to ideas and interests that we think are approved by the House of Justice. I also think that we have a responsibility to do that in ways that are in accordance with Baha'u'llah's purposes and prescriptions, so if I ever do this in a forum again, maybe I should start with that. I think that campaigns of denunciation and intimidation are diametrically opposed to Baha'u'llah's purposes and prescriptions. I think that anyone who is promoting ideas and interests that are stigmatized in popular Baha'i thinking should follow Abdu'l-Baha's advice about teaching the Faith where there is opposition to it. Also, if we see Baha'is feuding about it, we should stay out of the feuding. For now, I can't think of anything else to say about how we should promote stigmatized ideas and interests.

Besides all that, if a person thinks they disagrees with the House of Justice about same-sex marriage and homosexuality, they might think that it's influenced by prejudices against gays, so part of the answer would be to work to free Baha'is from that. If they disagree with the House of Justice about including women in its membership, they might think it's influenced by sexism, so part of the answer would be to work to free Baha'is from that. Actually, every disagreement that anyone thinks they have with the House of Justice might be related to some kind of prejudice or delusion, so part of the answer would be to work to free Baha'is from that.

So it turns out that what I'm discussing here is the responsibility that I think we all have to promote whatever ideas and interests that we think are good for the world, without thinking that it can't be contrary to any of the views of the House of Justice, and how to promote ideas that are stigmatized in popular Baha'i thinking.

 

[Jim]

@Tony Bristow-Stagg

I see that the House of Justice needs to interpret the writings for itself, to make the decisions it needs to make about how to apply them, and we need to know how it's interpreting them, to understand its decisions. I think that it's contrary to Baha'u'llah's purposes and prescriptions to think of those interpretations as boundaries around what we can say and do. I think that confining ourselves that way is part of the shackles that the House of Justice says is impeding the religious spirit from exerting all its possible influence.

 

[paarsurrey]

Some Baha'is think that it's wrong for any Baha'i to promote any ideas or interests contrary to the ideas and interests of their supreme council, the Universal House of Justice. I'm not one of them. I don't think it's wrong, or contrary to Baha'i scriptures, to promote ideas and interests contrary to those of the House of Justice. For example, I don't think it's wrong for Baha'is who disagree with the House of Justice about homosexuality or gay marriage, about excluding women from its membership, about its role and authority, about Baha'i scholarship, about the infallibility of Baha'i scriptures, or even about the claims of Baha'u'llah, to promote their ideas about that, online or offline. Besides, it looks to me like some of the ones who think it's wrong, do it themselves in Internet discussions.

Of course, I might be wrong about all that.

ETA:

I think that it's important for the success of the Baha'i Faith in its purposes, for Baha'is who disagree with the House of Justice to feel free, and to be free, to promote their ideas among Baha'is, online and offline.

Of course, I might be wrong about that too.

"Some Baha'is think that it's wrong for any Baha'i to promote any ideas or interests contrary to the ideas and interests of their supreme council, the Universal House of Justice." Unquote.

If the issues are not core , then one could have a different opinion. But in the core issues one should remain with or near to the official thinking and should not discuss them publicly, one could , however, discuss them with the personal friends never forming a group. To form a grouping is not good for the community.
Else, one could come out of the community, that is the only peaceful approach, to me.

Regards

 

[InvestigateTruth]

So is your contention that anyone whose Baha'i faith does not exactly correspond to your interpretation of Baha'u'llah's writings (etc.) is not a real Baha'i faith. If you guys can't even accept a different interpretation of your own beliefs, how are you ever going to accept the beliefs of the altogether different religions that you hope to "unite"? I just don't get it - this part, I just don't get.

You are referring to the issue of interpretation of the Writings of Bahaullah. It is not whether or not I accept any other interpretations. Bahaullah wrote that to interpret His writings correctly, all must refer to Abdulbaha. Bahaullah appointed Abdulbaha as the interpreter of the verses of God. Now, let me ask you: if a believer in Bahaullah wants to understand the Writing of Bahaullah, should he accept interpretations which is different than how Abdulbaha interpreted?

Also, when a Religion is divided in to several sects which fight with each other over the correct interpretations, how can unity be established between them? Now, the unity between them is established when, the Founder does not allow anyone to fabricate interpretations other than what was intended, and Bahaullah has done this, by choosing Abdulbaha as the One and Only interpreter who knows His writings perfectly correct, so, there remains no doubt regarding correct interpretation. Now, just think that, how many wars, and conflicts has been between Christian sects, or between Muslim sets, or even Hindu sects. Compare the magnitude of those wars and conflicts to that of Bahai Faith, so, you can see the practical advantage of having the Center of Covenant.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

@Tony Bristow-Stagg

I see that the House of Justice needs to interpret the writings for itself, to make the decisions it needs to make about how to apply them, and we need to know how it's interpreting them, to understand its decisions. I think that it's contrary to Baha'u'llah's purposes and prescriptions think of those interpretations as boundaries around what we can say and do. I think that confining ourselves that way is part of the shackles that the House of Justice says is impeding the religious spirit from exerting all its possible influence.

Personally I will go with submission. That is our challenge in this matter and that is the Spirit where unity is found.

Baha'u'llah has assured us that they will be guided. We elect the people most detached from this world to acheive that guidance. Thus they can come to a decision as they so choose. I know they will do their best.

So in turn I submit to this wisdom and we are assured if we do this, if a decision had an element of error, it will be righted. That entire path would have been the bounty of God.

Personaly I wrote to an NSA with and Issue I saw was urgent and they did not respond how I suspected they might. Thus I went a level higher and asked the same of the Universal House of Justice. They responded saying listen to what the NSA offered. That was the day about 3.5 years ago I had to see the wisdom in submission.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

If you guys can't even accept a different interpretation of your own beliefs, how are you ever going to accept the beliefs of the altogether different religions that you hope to "unite"? I just don't get it - this part, I just don't get.

You are referring to the issue of interpretation of the Writings of Bahaullah. It is not whether or not I accept any other interpretations. Bahaullah wrote that to interpret His writings correctly, all must refer to Abdulbaha. Bahaullah appointed Abdulbaha as the interpreter of the verses of God. Now, let me ask you: if a believer in Bahaullah wants to understand the Writing of Bahaullah, should he accept interpretations which is different than how Abdulbaha interpreted?

Also, when a Religion is divided in to several sects which fight with each other over the correct interpretations, how can unity be established between them? Now, the unity between them is established when, the Founder does not allow anyone to fabricate interpretations other than what was intended, and Bahaullah has done this, by choosing Abdulbaha as the One and Only interpreter who knows His writings perfectly correct, so, there remains no doubt regarding correct interpretation. Now, just think that, how many wars, and conflicts has been between Christian sects, or between Muslim sets, or even Hindu sects. Compare the magnitude of those wars and conflicts to that of Bahai Faith, so, you can see the practical advantage of having the Center of Covenant.

I would add we can have a different opinion on what a writing means, but it is held as our own opinion.

The Covenant of interpretation continued to Shoghi Effendi through Abdul'Baha. The Universal House of Justice has no authority to interpret.

To me therin lies the God given Challenge for this age. The lone of the Guardian could have continued but it was impossible to appoint another. Thus the line of interpretation finished and left us with the Universal Hiuse of Justice to guide into the future.

What better way to learn submission to Gids Will? The Universal House of Justice has been assured guidance and who would want to question what they decide?

The answer to that is those that think they know better. Given the assurance the Universal House of Jusrice has been given by the Covenant, this attitude is not desirable. We have to learn to have our view and freely discuss it, but if it is contrary to what is being advised by the Universal House of Justice, we should learn humility.

When we meet our maker we could always say, see I knew I was right

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

It is easy to know. Bahai Faith is established based on the writings of Bahaullah. All we need to do is, to compare it. It is like building a boat with exact sizes, shape, material. Bahaullah defined the design of the boat. Now we know what boat is the boat of Bahaullah from its specifications.

What is true Christianity? Catholics say they have a direct line of leadership that started with the Apostle Peter. Protestants say that they can look at the Bible and see what true Christianity should be. In the Baha'i Faith, I'm sure the Covenant-Breakers have, to them, legitimate reasons why they think they are the true line and not the Baha'is following the UHJ.

But the Baha'i Faith isn't even 200 years old yet. What if the leadership, which can make rules, makes some bad ones? What if some of the leaders take too much power and want to maintain that power? Baha'i say that did happen in other religions, but, right now, they are confident it can't happen to them. But the leaders are only people. Some have already tried to take control. Instead of claiming Guardianship, what if it's only small steps they take... until it's too late?

In the U.S. I read there was already problems between West Coast Baha'is versus East Coast Baha'is at the National level. And, in the 70's, there were very liberal Baha'is and very conservative Baha'is. Who's going to take the lead? Are they so perfect that they will do the right thing? Well, I'll tell you, it was the conservative ones, because they were the leaders on the Assembly. The liberal Baha'is weren't always following or believing all the rules, so it was easy to get judgements against them. The ones, in power, on the Assemblies, had the power and they used the power. That was a community of about 15 Baha'is. Out of those 15, who do you think consistently got voted to be one of the nine to serve on the Assembly? The liberal Baha'is or the conservative ones? Which people consistently get voted to be delegates? And what kind of people do they vote for to be on the National Assembly. Then, who do they vote for to be on the UHJ?

Maybe at the top they are the best people, but what I experienced at the local level was ordinary, flawed people that didn't always do the right thing. Like I've mentioned before, I hung out with the liberal Baha'is... and many of them dropped out. So is the Baha'i Faith so rigid that it weeds out those that don't "believe" 100%? But, who really does believe in anything 100%? And, if no one is at 100%, where do you draw thing line? 'Cause the line isn't all that clear. Many can say they believe in Baha'u'llah, but their actions say otherwise. Which is one of the main criticisms of Christians... that they don't live by what they preach. And what happened to them. They have liberal "Emerging" churches and the old established churches that go by the book. Will it happen to the Baha'i Faith?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Then, who do they vote for to be on the UHJ?

Everyone already knows who the next guy will be.

If you want to know how it can work, this link is the guidance from Shoghi Effendi;

Elections, Baha'i

A quote;

"If we but turn our gaze to the high qualifications of the members of Bahá'í Assemblies, " we are filled with feelings of unworthiness and dismay, and would feel truly disheartened but for the comforting thought that if we rise to play nobly our part every deficiency in our lives will be more than compensated by the all-conquering spirit of His grace and power. Hence it is incumbent upon the chosen delegates to consider without the least trace of passion and prejudice, and irrespective of any material consideration, the names of only those who can best combine the necessary qualities of unquestioned loyalty, of selfless devotion, of a well-trained mind, of recognized ability and mature experience".

The advice will guide us into the future.

Thus every 5 years when the Universal House of Justice is elected. All this advice is considered and it is only on the day when it is known who is elected. That is applicable to all levels of Baha'i elections.

Regards Tony