Emergence of Bahai'ism

[Dawnofhope]

Sure, just like there is plenty of opposition online to the Witnesses and Mormons. What I was trying to point out was that the neo-Messianic expectations of the Bahais resembles that of the Mormon restorationism of the Book of Mormon and the expectations of the Witnesses that arose in the 1840s, along with their organizational structures and affinities to Freemasonry or at least to the features of a secretive centralized authority structure involving the First Presidency of the Mormons, the Governing Body of the Witnesses and the Universal House of Justice.

I better see where you’re coming from. You are looking for a framework, category or box to fit the Baha’i Faith into.

It may be helpful for you to check out another thread started by someone from a Dharmic background also grappling with the same problem.

Two approaches towards reforming Islam: the Bahai Faith and Ahmadiyya Islam.

You may also want to check out the list of claimants in regards the Mahdi.

Mahdi - Wikipedia

There’s actually not that many claimants and only the Baha’is and the Ahmadiyya movement have significant following to back their claims. There’s currently about 6-10 million Baha’is worldwide.

The Freemasons arose out of Europe over 300 years ago during the so called enlightenment era. Joseph Smith was a Freemason before declaring himself to be a prophet like Moses and Elijah. He renounced his freemasonry connections. I’m not aware of any significant connections between the JWs and Baha’is.

The Baha’i Faith is a grassroots movement but our international governing body the Universal House of Justice is elected every 5 years. All adult members of our community 21 years or older can contribute to its election indirectly or directly. I don’t see it as being secretive at all. Here’s a link to their website.

The Universal House of Justice - An official website of the Bahá’í Faith

 

[duvduv]

I am aware of differences, but also of similarities, including centralized ideological direction from a specific body of authority as I mentioned. Beyond that I still cannot understand exactly what mainstream Muslims understand to be the messianic role of Jesus together with the Mahdi messiah. And since there is no mention of a Mahdi in the Quran, how do Muslims justify the belief unless they just adopted it from Jews and Christians.
And since Ghuzal Ahmad did not fulfill the traditional Islamic expectations of the Mahdi even according to the Shia, why would anyone have accepted him? Unless their choice is no different than a mainstream Christian deciding to adopt the claims of the Mormon church.

 

[CG Didymus]

The Baha’i Faith is not a denomination or sect of Islam. It is an independent religion based on the Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh. We see the Qur’an as the authenticated respository of the Word of God, but we turn to Bahá’u’lláh’s Revelation that is a much more recent Message from God that addresses the needs of the age we currently live in.

Ironically, Baha'is teach that all religions are one. So somehow and someway, they are supposedly interconnected and related. Only problem is... all of them, as they are practiced today, are wrong. Most of them have errors in their Scriptures and for sure the followers have misinterpreted those Scriptures... according to what Baha'is here at RF have said.

 

[CG Didymus]

I better see where you’re coming from. You are looking for a framework, category or box to fit the Baha’i Faith into.

It may be helpful for you to check out another thread started by someone from a Dharmic background also grappling with the same problem.

Two approaches towards reforming Islam: the Bahai Faith and Ahmadiyya Islam.

You may also want to check out the list of claimants in regards the Mahdi.

Mahdi - Wikipedia

There’s actually not that many claimants and only the Baha’is and the Ahmadiyya movement have significant following to back their claims. There’s currently about 6-10 million Baha’is worldwide.

The Freemasons arose out of Europe over 300 years ago during the so called enlightenment era. Joseph Smith was a Freemason before declaring himself to be a prophet like Moses and Elijah. He renounced his freemasonry connections. I’m not aware of any significant connections between the JWs and Baha’is.

The Baha’i Faith is a grassroots movement but our international governing body the Universal House of Justice is elected every 5 years. All adult members of our community 21 years or older can contribute to its election indirectly or directly. I don’t see it as being secretive at all. Here’s a link to their website.

The Universal House of Justice - An official website of the Bahá’í Faith

Don't other religions have claims of a new spiritual teacher? Like even the Sikhs, what was their founders claims? Then there Satya Sai Baba and the Hare Krishna people. What are their founders claiming? Then I know some people that follow some Maitreya. I would imagine he's claiming to be the return of somebody, maybe even the Buddha? And speaking of returning. Who do the Tibetan Buddhists believe the Dalai Lama is?

I never hear about any of these religious movements from Baha'is. The usual answer is all "major" religions are one and in the progression. But numbers wise, some of these smaller religious movements are just as big as the Baha'i Faith aren't they?

 

[duvduv]

Even those who respect one another's religions understand that a claim that all religions are one is ridiculous.
Either the Hebrew bible is true and its commandments are true for Jews or they are not.
According to Christianity the laws of the Hebrew Bible are not obligatory anymore.
Either Jesus is the exclusive path to salvation or he is not.
Either the teachings of the Quran, and superseding the religions of Judaism and Christianity are true or they are not.
Either the paths of Sunni or Shia are true or they are not.
Either the teachings of Sanatana Dharma (called Hinduism) of the Vedas is true or it isn't, including its rejection of the claims of Abrahamic religions.
Either the claims of religion made in Buddhism are true or they are not.
To say that mutually contradictory teachings are essentially one is ridiculous. To say they should all be respected despite their external and internal contradictions is not ridiculous.
Sounds more and more like the Bahais have taken on features of simplistic universalism as taught by the Freemasons, etc.

 

[LuisDantas]

I have a hard time even imagining Freemasonry influencing the history of the Bahais, particularly during their origin.

The environment just wasn't very conductive to such influence.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I am aware of differences, but also of similarities, including centralized ideological direction from a specific body of authority as I mentioned. Beyond that I still cannot understand exactly what mainstream Muslims understand to be the messianic role of Jesus together with the Mahdi messiah. And since there is no mention of a Mahdi in the Quran, how do Muslims justify the belief unless they just adopted it from Jews and Christians.
And since Ghuzal Ahmad did not fulfill the traditional Islamic expectations of the Mahdi even according to the Shia, why would anyone have accepted him? Unless their choice is no different than a mainstream Christian deciding to adopt the claims of the Mormon church.

Don’t forget about the Hadiths that have great importance to Muslims and contributes to Islamic eschatology.

According to many Jews, Christ didn’t fulfil any prophecies in the Tanakh but Christianity has obviously flourished.

The rise and success of a movement based on the Qa’im will depend on God regardless of all the powers on earth to suppress it.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Even those who respect one another's religions understand that a claim that all religions are one is ridiculous.
Either the Hebrew bible is true and its commandments are true for Jews or they are not.
According to Christianity the laws of the Hebrew Bible are not obligatory anymore.
Either Jesus is the exclusive path to salvation or he is not.
Either the teachings of the Quran, and superseding the religions of Judaism and Christianity are true or they are not.
Either the paths of Sunni or Shia are true or they are not.
Either the teachings of Sanatana Dharma (called Hinduism) of the Vedas is true or it isn't, including its rejection of the claims of Abrahamic religions.
Either the claims of religion made in Buddhism are true or they are not.
To say that mutually contradictory teachings are essentially one is ridiculous. To say they should all be respected despite their external and internal contradictions is not ridiculous.
Sounds more and more like the Bahais have taken on features of simplistic universalism as taught by the Freemasons, etc.

I agree the Freemasons are Universalists other than being men only until relatively recently. However they have had no relevance to the history of the Baha’i Faith.

There are plenty of universalists in all religions. The contradictions between the religions to some appear irreconcilable and to others it’s just a matter of time before the norm for any person of faith living in a multicultural world becomes apparent.

My experience of mixing with peoples of different cultures of different Faiths is we’re all one people with one faith. Call it ridiculous if you want, but the exclusivity beliefs or claims of any one religion who exalts his own faith and belittles the beliefs of others is the most ridiculous of them all.

 

[Marcion]

My experience of mixing with peoples of different cultures of different Faiths is we’re all one people with one faith. Call it ridiculous if you want, but the exclusivity beliefs or claims of any one religion who exalts his own faith and belittles the beliefs of others is the most ridiculous of them all.

I agree that we are all one humanity with a united goal. But religious faiths in part contradict each other or even fight each other over their differences.

I feel it is wrong to belittle any faith or path because you will thereby hurt or wound that which is most precious to a person.
However, not all paths have the same practices and some are more developed with their set of practices than others.

Is there or should there be a taboo on showing or explaining such differences?
I don't mean bluntly pushing these things when they are not welcomed but in an open discussion about the parallels and differences between spiritual paths should they be debatable?

 

[Vinayaka]

I agree that we are all one humanity with a united goal. But religious faiths in part contradict each other or even fight each other over their differences.

I feel it is wrong to belittle any faith or path because you will thereby hurt or wound that which is most precious to a person.
However, not all paths have the same practices and some are more developed with their set of practices than others.

We can have mutual respect without being of one religion. I agree it is wrong to belittle other faiths, but I don't see pointing out differences as belittling. It's all only belief, after all. It's when you make the open declaration that the faith other than yours is just wrong that it's belittling.

 

[duvduv]

I have a hard time even imagining Freemasonry influencing the history of the Bahais, particularly during their origin.

The environment just wasn't very conductive to such influence.

It is not unlike all groups claiming universal application like Freemasonry.

 

[Vinayaka]

It is not unlike all groups claiming universal application like Freemasonry.

Another similarity is the difference between how important and well known they think they are, versus the reality. The reality in this case, is that most people have heard of neither. The 'emergence' of Baha'i isn't really applicable at all. It has yet to emerge as much of a force.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is not unlike all groups claiming universal application like Freemasonry.

As criteria of similarity go, this sounds like very much a stretch to me. Most everyone will assume or hope for universal applicability and relevance for any ideas that they value, until and unless given a clear reason not to.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Don't other religions have claims of a new spiritual teacher? Like even the Sikhs, what was their founders claims? Then there Satya Sai Baba and the Hare Krishna people. What are their founders claiming? Then I know some people that follow some Maitreya. I would imagine he's claiming to be the return of somebody, maybe even the Buddha? And speaking of returning. Who do the Tibetan Buddhists believe the Dalai Lama is?

I never hear about any of these religious movements from Baha'is. The usual answer is all "major" religions are one and in the progression. But numbers wise, some of these smaller religious movements are just as big as the Baha'i Faith aren't they?

We recognise Krishna and Buddha as Manifestations of God. The most recent Manifestation of God prior to the Bab and Baha'u'llah was Muhammad. That doesn't mean there haven't been enlightened teachers and people of enormous capacity that have had some influence. However we would not consider any of these other people Manifestations of God.

 

[siti]

We recognise Krishna and Buddha as Manifestations of God. The most recent Manifestation of God prior to the Bab and Baha'u'llah was Muhammad. That doesn't mean there haven't been enlightened teachers and people of enormous capacity that have had some influence. However we would not consider any of these other people Manifestations of God.

Yes - they have to be people whose lives are at least to some extent shrouded in mystery - we wouldn't want a Manifestation whose real lives were too...well...er...manifest - that just wouldn't do at all.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Ironically, Baha'is teach that all religions are one. So somehow and someway, they are supposedly interconnected and related. Only problem is... all of them, as they are practiced today, are wrong. Most of them have errors in their Scriptures and for sure the followers have misinterpreted those Scriptures... according to what Baha'is here at RF have said.

A tree grows to maturity, bears fruit, grows old and eventually dies. So too will the Baha’i Faith eventually.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Another similarity is the difference between how important and well known they think they are, versus the reality. The reality in this case, is that most people have heard of neither. The 'emergence' of Baha'i isn't really applicable at all. It has yet to emerge as much of a force.

It took Christianity nearly three hundred years to emerge as a force. Buddhism, Judaism, and Islam started from just one man. The origins of Hinduism are obscured through the mists of time but presumably had modest beginnings.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I agree that we are all one humanity with a united goal. But religious faiths in part contradict each other or even fight each other over their differences.

I feel it is wrong to belittle any faith or path because you will thereby hurt or wound that which is most precious to a person.
However, not all paths have the same practices and some are more developed with their set of practices than others.

Is there or should there be a taboo on showing or explaining such differences?
I don't mean bluntly pushing these things when they are not welcomed but in an open discussion about the parallels and differences between spiritual paths should they be debatable?

It is good to discuss both similarities and differences of religion. This will help us better understand both the diversity and the common threads woven through all faiths.

 

[Vinayaka]

It took Christianity nearly three hundred years to emerge as a force. Buddhism, Judaism, and Islam started from just one man. The origins of Hinduism are obscured through the mists of time but presumably had modest beginnings.

Of a hundred that start out, 99 fail. (Probably much higher than that.) There are far more dead faith groups than alive ones. Our personal beliefs differ on this one.

 

[CG Didymus]

We can have mutual respect without being of one religion. I agree it is wrong to belittle other faiths, but I don't see pointing out differences as belittling. It's all only belief, after all. It's when you make the open declaration that the faith other than yours is just wrong that it's belittling.

Ironically, again, Baha'is say religions that believe in reincarnation are wrong. Where is the respect? Then there's another religion that believes it's prophet is the Son of God and is God himself as a part of a three-in-one Godhead and rose physically from the dead and conquered Satan the devil and has the ability to save people from eternal torment in hell fire... do Baha'is believe or respect those beliefs of that religion or do they teach that those things are false? So what exactly do they mean when they say they "respect" all religions? It seems to me that they believe they are the only ones that are right. At best, the other ones were only right in their original form as taught by their prophet. Whatever that was?