What exactly do Baha'is mean by "Independent Investigation of the Truth"?

[CG Didymus]

According to Baha'i sources, there is far too many writings for anyone to be familiar with it all. But I digress. In Canada, we're called provinces, and there are very few Bahais around here. But perhaps one day I will go check it out.

As if talking face to face with one Baha'i in your province is going to get you anywhere. What about the people that first talked to Juan Cole before he got kicked out? In fact I might have heard him speak before. I do remember meeting Steven Scholl. He had a "Baha'i" magazine called "Dialogue". He printed things that the leadership didn't like and got kicked out too.

 

[Vinayaka]

As if talking face to face with one Baha'i in your province is going to get you anywhere. What about the people that first talked to Juan Cole before he got kicked out? In fact I might have heard him speak before. I do remember meeting Steven Scholl. He had a "Baha'i" magazine called "Dialogue". He printed things that the leadership didn't like and got kicked out too.

I'd have to take a vow of silence. Then, if I did note that only 3 people showed up for the regular feast, whatever that is, I'd be told I was a liar here. So really there is no point, is there?
Dr. Cole seems like a very reasonable guy. But trying to change things for the positive from the inside out clearly doesn't work when you're outnumbered.

"If yore not with us, yore agin us."

 

[CG Didymus]

I'd have to take a vow of silence. Then, if I did note that only 3 people showed up for the regular feast, whatever that is, I'd be told I was a liar here. So really there is no point, is there?
Dr. Cole seems like a very reasonable guy. But trying to change things for the positive from the inside out clearly doesn't work when you're outnumbered.

"If yore not with us, yore agin us."

The "Feast" is for Baha'is only. They had what they called "firesides" for "seekers". I don't know if they still do. Pretty much every community that had a Local Spiritual Assembly, had a night for a fireside. They were informal and most had a different person speak each time. Some fireside were extremely boring. The better ones had more knowledgeable and more charismatic speakers. So a lot of people would bring their non-Baha'i friends to those.

 

[Vinayaka]

The "Feast" is for Baha'is only. They had what they called "firesides" for "seekers". I don't know if they still do. Pretty much every community that had a Local Spiritual Assembly, had a night for a fireside. They were informal and most had a different person speak each time. Some fireside were extremely boring. The better ones had more knowledgeable and more charismatic speakers. So a lot of people would bring their non-Baha'i friends to those.

Thanks. I'd have to talks to some guy at an interfaith session.

 

[oldbadger]

The "Feast" is for Baha'is only. They had what they called "firesides" for "seekers". I don't know if they still do. Pretty much every community that had a Local Spiritual Assembly, had a night for a fireside. They were informal and most had a different person speak each time. Some fireside were extremely boring. The better ones had more knowledgeable and more charismatic speakers. So a lot of people would bring their non-Baha'i friends to those.

Hi....
They used to let me in to feasts, because my wife was a Bahai but I would take her to the feasts by car, and they would let me in.

And so feasts, firesides etc all became one. My wife was a committee member (whatever) but never attended bahai assembly committees because I could not go in to those.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The Bhagavad Gita has at least 50 translations, probably more. They vary a ton. Many, especially in commentary, have sectarian biases. There are translations by Christians, by advaitins, by Gaudiya Vaishnavites, by scholars, by atheists, etc. People have debates over which ones are more accurate, or true intent. It's not a problem for me. Of course some people do get their emotions rattled over other translations. That's the case here, on both sides. You're a Baha'i, obviously you'll like and promote Baha'i translations. It's a free country, and a translator can translate however he/she sees fit. Limiting other translations is just censorship.

If individuals want to translate the works of the central figures of the Baha'i Faith from Persian or Arabic into English, including the Baha'is themselves, they are free to do so. However they will not be considered part of the Baha'i writings for the obvious reason we want to ensure any translation are to a high standard.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Because Baha'is simply refuse to translate those quotes to English.

FYI, any translation that I quote here I double check it first to make sure the quote really exists and has been translated correctly.

All writings will eventually be translated into English. Baha'u'llah's writings alone are estimated to be 70 times the size of the Qurans. Steady progress is being made in translating works into English and other languages.

Baha'is are free to read your translation and Juan Cole's for that matter. The Baha'i community alone reserves the right to decide which translation we consider to meet our high standards.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I'm the one lolling at your ridiculous excuse. Let's put it this way:

Unlike Islam, Christianity, Judaism and etc. A lot of the Baha'i scripture is available in the handwriting of the founders. That includes the WILL of Abdu'l-Baha. There is a controversy going on about the WILL and the only way to resolve the controversy is to publicly show it or at least provide a scan to Independently Investigate and verify it. However, since the Baha'i authorities know it's a fake they simply refuse to make it public and have resorted to distributing a typed copy.

If we apply the same standard to the Quran, then we should consider the Quran as fake too.

 

[Sen McGlinn]

Abdu'l-Baha himself corrected some of the chapters including chapter 5.

When communication with Palestine was reopened after the war, I wrote to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and enclosed a copy of the first nine chapters of the book, which was then almost complete in rough draft. I received a very kind and encouraging reply, and a cordial invitation to visit Him in Haifa and bring the whole of my manuscript with me. The invitation was gladly accepted, and I had the great privilege of spending two and a half months as the guest of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá during the winter of 1919–1920. During this visit ‘Abdu’l-Bahá discussed the book with me on various occasions. He gave several valuable suggestions for its improvement and proposed that, when I had revised the manuscript, He would have the whole of it translated into Persian so that He could read it through and amend or correct it where necessary. The revisal and translation were carried out as suggested, and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá found time, amid His busy life, to correct some three and a half chapters (Chapters 1, 2, 5 and part of 3) before He passed away. It is a matter of profound regret to me that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá was not able to complete the correction of the manuscript, as the value of the book would thereby have been greatly enhanced. The whole of the manuscript has been carefully revised, however, by a committee of the National Bahá’í Assembly of England, and its publication approved by that Assembly.

Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era | Bahá’í Reference Library

Something written by somebody (in a European language), which received Abdu'l-Baha's approval, does not become authentic Bahai scripture as a result. He approved all sort of things that we do not regard as correct, let alone scriptural, today -- simply because he was an encouraging, approving person. Shoghi Effendi also approved of the publication and translation of Esslemont's book, yet he also condemned some of its errors, such as Esslemont's belief in the "mystic unity" of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha (in BNE 1923 edition p. 68). That's in Chapter 4, which Esslemont says Abdu'l-Baha did not check, but the example shows that Shoghi Effendi's approach was to approve things that were good enough for purpose at the time, and better than the alternatives.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Something written by somebody (in a European language), which received Abdu'l-Baha's approval, does not become authentic Bahai scripture as a result. He approved all sort of things that we do not regard as correct, let alone scriptural, today -- simply because he was an encouraging, approving person. Shoghi Effendi also approved of the publication and translation of Esslemont's book, yet he also condemned some of its errors, such as Esslemont's belief in the "mystic unity" of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha (in BNE 1923 edition p. 68). That's in Chapter 4, which Esslemont says Abdu'l-Baha did not check, but the example shows that Shoghi Effendi's approach was to approve things that were good enough for purpose at the time, and better than the alternatives.

Words that Abdu'l-Baha spoke and he subsequently checked are distinguished from those he spoke did not check. The former is authenticated, the latter is not.

The original of “Some Answered Questions” in Persian is preserved in the Holy Land; its text was read in full and corrected by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá Himself. Unfortunately, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá did not read and authenticate all transcripts of His other talks, some of which have been translated into various languages and published. For many of His addresses included in “The Promulgation of Universal Peace” and “Paris Talks", for example, no original authenticated text has yet been found. However, the Guardian allowed such compilations to continue to be used by the friends. In the future each talk will have to be identified and those which are unauthenticated will have to be clearly distinguished from those which form a part of Bahá’í Scripture. This does not mean that the unauthenticated talks will have to cease to be used—merely that the degree of authenticity of every document will have to be known and understood.
(Universal House of Justice, 23 March 1987)

The quote from PUP used by the OP is not authenticated as you correctly highlighted earlier in the thread. Logically, it would follow the words of Abdu'l-Baha used in chapter 5 of BNE that he checked would fall into the same category as SAQ. The only difficulty I see is knowing for certain that Abdu'l-Baha really did review it as Esslemont claims.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

One needs a lot of ego, arrogance, and pride to write something like that.

Or be a Manifestation of God from Allah.

It is also like the Koran. Muhammad said produce words like it, if you are of God.

The Bab and Baha'u'llah have both fulfilled that requirement.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You ever seen the will?

You will find them here. I have read it numerous times.

Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá | Bahá’í Reference Library

Baha'i Reference Library

Baha'i Reference Library

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

As if talking face to face with one Baha'i in your province is going to get you anywhere. What about the people that first talked to Juan Cole before he got kicked out? In fact I might have heard him speak before. I do remember meeting Steven Scholl. He had a "Baha'i" magazine called "Dialogue". He printed things that the leadership didn't like and got kicked out too.

There is a Covenant. Baha'u'llah has said if you claim to be a Baha'i you will be tested by what has been revealed as to the sincerity of your declaration.

The greatest of all enemies is ones own self that is still attached to this world. Obviously many attachments make it a hard journey.

It has been a rocky 35 years for me and it was because the wisdom was not yet lived in my life.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I'd have to take a vow of silence. Then, if I did note that only 3 people showed up for the regular feast, whatever that is, I'd be told I was a liar here. So really there is no point, is there?
Dr. Cole seems like a very reasonable guy. But trying to change things for the positive from the inside out clearly doesn't work when you're outnumbered.

"If yore not with us, yore agin us."

Again many things imputed without knowledge, baseless claims.

I have first hand knowledge of all these accusations and I am in remote communities where many did become Baha'i back in the 70's and 80's. After they became Baha'i there was not the backup required to deepen the knowledge.

In my area there are 9 Baha'i on the list, two only attend functions and that is what is noted on any statistics if requested.

Contact is made and they are happy to keep the name, as what attracted them was the Spirit in which it was given and we offer no pressure to become active in the knowledge.

We as Baha'i, may have stronger statitics if we did indeed proselytize, but that is forbidden.

The Bible offers the metaphor of what foundations do you build your home upon.

Regards Tony

 

[Sen McGlinn]

Words that Abdu'l-Baha spoke and he subsequently checked are distinguished from those he spoke did not check. The former is authenticated, the latter is not.

The original of “Some Answered Questions” in Persian is preserved in the Holy Land; its text was read in full and corrected by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá Himself. Unfortunately, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá did not read and authenticate all transcripts of His other talks, some of which have been translated into various languages and published. For many of His addresses included in “The Promulgation of Universal Peace” and “Paris Talks", for example, no original authenticated text has yet been found. However, the Guardian allowed such compilations to continue to be used by the friends. In the future each talk will have to be identified and those which are unauthenticated will have to be clearly distinguished from those which form a part of Bahá’í Scripture. This does not mean that the unauthenticated talks will have to cease to be used—merely that the degree of authenticity of every document will have to be known and understood.
(Universal House of Justice, 23 March 1987)

The quote from PUP used by the OP is not authenticated as you correctly highlighted earlier in the thread. Logically, it would follow the words of Abdu'l-Baha used in chapter 5 of BNE that he checked would fall into the same category as SAQ. The only difficulty I see is knowing for certain that Abdu'l-Baha really did review it as Esslemont claims.

There are several differences between the BNE reported words and Some Answered Questions. SAQ consists of words of Abdu'l-Baha recorded in Persian in Abdu'l-Baha's presence, checked and corrected by him in the original language, published with his approval in a book which presents itself as his work. BNE is a piece of early Bahai literature, full of pilgrim's notes, early translations of scripture that have since been superseded, and the ideas of its author, Esslemont, but highly praised by Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi despite its shortcomings. Those shortcomings have to some extent been corrected by later editors. In its day it was an important book.

 

[spirit_of_dawn]

If individuals want to translate the works of the central figures of the Baha'i Faith from Persian or Arabic into English, including the Baha'is themselves, they are free to do so. However they will not be considered part of the Baha'i writings for the obvious reason we want to ensure any translation are to a high standard.

What I see is an excuse to suppress the scripture. For the sake of the argument let's suppose what you claim is correct and Baha'is want to ensure their translations are "a high standard". A quick comparison shows the contrary to your claims. I'll just quote a statement from the repected ex-Baha'i professor Juan cole:

"Moreover, the Universal House of Justice's own translations, as represented in Tablets of Bahā’u’llāh and some of the compilations, are riddled with errors and mistranslations that give an extremely misleading impression of the intent of the original on a number of occasions." (Tablet of the Maiden)​

The Baha'i community alone reserves the right to decide which translation we consider to meet our high standards.

Good luck with the credibility you'll buy for yourselves with this attitude.

If we apply the same standard to the Quran, then we should consider the Quran as fake too.

Exactly. But unfortunately, the original will of Abdu'l-Baha is available but Baha'is simply refuse to make it public to dispel the allegations, on the other hand no one knows about the whereabouts of the original manuscript of the Quran. Two different issues here thah cannot be judged by the same standard.

 

[spirit_of_dawn]

You will find them here. I have read it numerous times.

Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá | Bahá’í Reference Library

Baha'i Reference Library

Baha'i Reference Library

Regards Tony

Why do you act like I'm dumb?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But unfortunately, the original will of Abdu'l-Baha is available but Baha'is simply refuse to make it public to dispel the allegations

Why do you act like I'm dumb?

The two Baha'i Library links provided in both Persian and Arabic, is it not available to read?

Regards Tony

 

[spirit_of_dawn]

Still acting like I'm dumb. I asked for a scan of the original handwritten will, as if you didn't already know.

 

[Vinayaka]

Why do you act like I'm dumb?

Get used to it.