Covenant Breaker website?

[Seeker_of_truth]

Do any Baha'is know if this website Welcome to the Baha'i Faith
is a covenant breaker website? My dad told me it is.
It says "Official website of the UHJ" so i thought it was legit.

[arthra]

Yes indeed your father is correct...

The Universal House of Justice never refers to itself as "UHJ"... although some Baha'is do use those initials.

You can also tell it is by the emphasis on geneology of David and the bizarre twist on prophecies about the twin towers

and a real giveaway is when they refer to the wife of the Beloved Guardian as

"... the Arch-Violator of God's Covenant, Ruhiyyih Khanum..."

Another giveaway:

"Baha'u'llah's UHJ is now firmly established in it's first stage right here in the United States of America in the Rocky Mountains with the Davidic King seated as President."

They're also interested in Nostradamus...

But the truly sad thing to me is their using the name "UHJ" as a deceptive way of getting people who don't know any better to read their site!

- Art

[Seeker_of_truth]

Thanks for you replay, that website has been my homepage for the past month or so :P.

[Popeyesays]

Try WWW.bahai.org instead.

[DynoMight]

I am curious would the website of Matrixism (Matrixism: the path of the One, The Matrix Religion (Sim Jedi Religion)) be considered a covenant breaker website?

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by DynoMight

I am curious would the website of Matrixism (Matrixism: the path of the One, The Matrix Religion (Sim Jedi Religion)) be considered a covenant breaker website?

No. The people who began the site were not Baha`i's to begin with.

Anyone who is registered as a Baha`i can always elect to leave the faith by withdrawal, anything he says afterwards can never make him a covenant breaker.

Essentially the difference is this. A person who is changed in some way can leave the faith. A person is not allowed to demand the faith change to match his own beliefs. Ego is what causes covenant breaking. Just withdrawing from the faith is not ego driven.

Regards,
Scott

[DynoMight]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

No. The people who began the site were not Baha`i's to begin with. ... Ego is what causes covenant breaking.

If what you says is true then it would have been "ego" that drove The Bab and Baha'u'llah to create new religions out of Islam. I diagree with that point of view. It seems more reasonable that as the world changes (especially due to new technology and the advancement of culture) the old order needs to be adjusted and hopefully improved. It most probably a calling of true conscience that drove The Bab, Baha'u'llah, The Buddha and Jesus Christ. I argue this same motivation continues to drive the creators of The Path of the One (or Matrixism as it is more popularly known).

ps - Scott, "Matrixism" is a proper noun and should be capitalized.

[arthra]

Baha'is don't have any official position on "Matrixism"...but as I pointed out my personal view is that the quotes taken from Abdul-Baha's talks are translations into English and through the coincidental accident of language the term "matrix" pops up occasionally. I doubt the creators of the Matrix movies had Abdul-Baha's talks in mind when they developed those films.

The site that "dyno mite" gives us has this remark:

"Who created Matrixism?
A: The Wachowski brothers for the most part but also Aldous Huxley, C.S. Lewis and Abdul Baha."

My guess is that the Wachowski brothers "created Matrixism" not Abdul-Baha. Since we are observing a special Holy Day commemorating the Center of the Covenant Abdul-Baha we remember His title was Servant of Baha and that He tirelessly taught the Baha'i Faith throughout most of His life travelling to Europe and America tirelessly working for peace and human understanding and love.

- Art

[Popeyesays]

A Happy Day of the Covenant to everyone,

Dyno, we were discussing covenant breakers, not Manifestations of God. There is no ego in a Manifestation of God. Covenant Breakers make no claim to BE Manifestations of God, it's only a matter of encouraging one's own interpretation be mandatory upon others that does that.

I would point out that the collection of addresses of Abdu'l Baha are not considered authoritative text. Why, you might ask? Because the translations and transcriptions of the addresses was never reviewed or approved by Abdu'l Baha. This puts the addresses into the category of fascinating reading, but not authority on the level of the Tablets of Abdu'l Baha, or Some Answered Questions or A Travellers Narrative. Add this to the fact that Abdu'l Baha was using a substitute translator for those particular speeches and one has to wonder what his regular translator would have used as a synonym.

What exactly do you mean by "matrix". These are the Merriam Webster definitions. You'll note that the word descends from 'mater' (Latin for 'mother'). That is, of course, the very reference that Abdu'l Baha's words use--the womb.

Main Entry: ma·trix
Pronunciation: 'mA-triks
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural ma·tri·ces /'mA-tr&-"sEz, 'ma- /; or ma·trix·es /'mA-trik-s&z/
Etymology: Latin, female animal used for breeding, parent plant, from matr-, mater
1 : something within or from which something else originates, develops, or takes form
2 a : a mold from which a relief surface (as a piece of type) is made b : DIE 3a(1) c : an engraved or inscribed die or stamp d : an electroformed impression of a phonograph record used for mass-producing duplicates of the original
3 a : the natural material (as soil or rock) in which something (as a fossil or crystal) is embedded b : material in which something is enclosed or embedded (as for protection or study)
4 a : the extracellular substance in which tissue cells (as of connective tissue) are embedded b : the thickened epithelium at the base of a fingernail or toenail from which new nail substance develops
5 a : a rectangular array of mathematical elements (as the coefficients of simultaneous linear equations) that can be combined to form sums and products with similar arrays having an appropriate number of rows and columns b : something resembling a mathematical matrix especially in rectangular arrangement of elements into rows and columns c : an array of circuit elements (as diodes and transistors) for performing a specific function
6 : a main clause that contains a subordinate clause
As to another laying claim to BE a Manifestation of God, Baha`u'llah has this to say:
"Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from
God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a
man is assuredly a lying impostor. We pray God that
He may graciously assist him to retract and repudiate
such claim. Should he repent, God will, no doubt,
forgive him. If, however, he persisteth in his error,
God will, assuredly, send down one who will deal
mercilessly with him. Terrible, indeed, is God in
punishing! Whosoever interpreteth this verse otherwise
than its obvious meaning is deprived of the Spirit of
God and of His mercy which encompasseth all created
things. Fear God, and follow not your idle fancies.
Nay, rather, follow the bidding of your Lord, the
Almighty, the All-Wise. Erelong shall clamorous
voices be raised in most lands. Shun them, O My
people, and follow not the iniquitous and evil-hearted.
This is that of which We gave you forewarning when
We were dwelling in Iraq, then later while in the Land
of Mystery, and now from this Resplendent Spot."
(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 32)

Now, I do not believe that the folks playing with "Matrixism" are evil-hearted. It's just an intellectual toy of the moment for bored people.

Regards,
Scott

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by DynoMight

I am curious would the website of Matrixism (Matrixism: the path of the One, The Matrix Religion (Sim Jedi Religion)) be considered a covenant breaker website?

Actually at least one person involved with them seems to be a Baha'i as far as I can tell but the website certainly makes claims clearly not supported by, and in a few cases opposed by, the teachings presented in the texts of the Baha'i Faith.

As to any philosophical/religious background of the Matrix series there is a small comment at the wikipedia article at the bottom under Mass Media references. There was a widely quoted Christian media critic who used quotes from the Baha'i Faith to summarize the movie but then went on into another direction and on the matrix.com websites it has a section on papers/articles and in there are a few papers on the philosophical basis with one good long one referenced in the wiki article.

[DynoMight]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Dyno, we were discussing covenant breakers, not Manifestations of God. There is no ego in a Manifestation of God. Covenant Breakers make no claim to BE Manifestations of God, it's only a matter of encouraging one's own interpretation be mandatory upon others that does that.

I'm a little bit confused here. Are you saying that if a registered Baha'i were to claim to be a manifestation of God they wouldn't be considered a covenant breaker?

Anyhow what I was getting at is that Islam considers the Bab and Baha'u'llah to be covenant breakers (heretics) just like the Baha'i consider Mason Remey to be a covenant breaker. As you can see this is a bit of a hypocritical stance on the part of the Baha'i.

Just think if Mason Remey and his followers were to live in a state that was predominantly Baha'i it would be virtually impossible for them not to be discriminated against. It would be like ... Oh I don't know ... perhaps like the treatment of the Baha'i community in Iran. Or maybe not that bad: just some old fashioned segregation like before the civil rights movement.

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by DynoMight

I'm a little bit confused here. Are you saying that if a registered Baha'i were to claim to be a manifestation of God they wouldn't be considered a covenant breaker?

Anyhow what I was getting at is that Islam considers the Bab and Baha'u'llah to be covenant breakers (heretics) just like the Baha'i consider Mason Remey to be a covenant breaker. As you can see this is a bit of a hypocritical stance on the part of the Baha'i.

Just think if Mason Remey and his followers were to live in a state that was predominantly Baha'i it would be virtually impossible for them not to be discriminated against. It would be like ... Oh I don't know ... perhaps like the treatment of the Baha'i community in Iran. Or maybe not that bad: just some old fashioned segregation like before the civil rights movement.

Try it this way:

When a claim to the station of Divine Manifestation is made it is a new covenant. So Baha`u'llah did not break the covenant of Muhammad, His presence and claim began a new covenant, or refreshed the old covenant and made it new. The station of Muhammad is never denied, instead it is elevated and appreciated.

Mason Remey NEVER made a claim to BE a Manifestation of God, he claimed to be the 2nd Guardian. Shoghi Effendi took the role of Guardian at the bequest of Abdu'l Baha, Shoghi Effendi NEVER claimed to be a Manifestation of God.
Abdu'l Baha took the position of Interpreter of the Text and Center of the Covenant, he NEVER claimed to be a Manifestation of God or anything other than "Abdu'l Baha" (Servant of Glory). "My name is Abdu'l Baha. My purpose is Abdu'l Baha. My station is Abdu'l Baha."

So neither Abdu'l Baha or Shoghi Effendi claimed the station of Manifestation. Neither did Mason Remey for that matter, so none of them were the advent of a new covenant.

Mason Remey broke the covenant of Baha`u'llah with his claim. His 26 fellow Hands of the Cause removed him from their number and declared him a covenant breaker as was their defined duty (by Abdu'l Baha).

Covenant Breakers are not permanently cast out of anything. Such an individual CAN (and has in the past) repented and been allowed to return. Some of those individuals lived the rest of their lives within the covenant, others found themselves unable to give up the behaviors which set them apart in the first place.

A covenant breaker is ignored by the Baha`i community, but their place in society is not changed. Even a society that was only "predominantly" Baha`i would still allow the individual to do whatever they might please and associate with whomever they pleased. No civil rights are challenged.

A Baha`i in Iran these days is denied the ability to go to university or high school, because to do so he would have to sign a paper that declared him a Jew, a Parsee, a Christian or a Muslim. Baha`i's are not allowed to have the presence of the Local, Regional, and National Assemblies, They are denied the right to marry as Baha`i's. In some instances the Baha`i wife was declared a prostitute and jailed while the children were siezed and sent to foster Muslim families. Baha`i cemetaries and Holy places have been bulldozed. The former members of Assemblies were jailed and executed, (almost three hundred individuals). One of those individuals was a sixteen year old girl who was convicted for teaching Baha`i children's classes to Baha`i children. The male prisoners were executed by firing squad and the families billed for the expended ammunition by the Iranian government. The women were hung.

Now, where do you get off claiming that this kind of treatment is the equivalent to being declared a covenant breaker?

There has been no more extreme a case of murderous persecution for religious reasons since the Holocaust and the R'wandan murders.

At this point I AM offended. An apology is due, if you don't give it, I'll contact the moderator.

Regards,
Scott

[DynoMight]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Now, where do you get off claiming that this kind of treatment is the equivalent to being declared a covenant breaker?

There has been no more extreme a case of murderous persecution for religious reasons since the Holocaust and the R'wandan murders.

At this point I AM offended. An apology is due, if you don't give it, I'll contact the moderator.

Now Scott you're going way off the deep end here. I never claimed that shunting Baha'i dissenters was equivalent to the Holocost or the R'wandan murders. You just made that stuff up to create the illusion of a flame war going on. I can't imagine how I could have led you to believe that but if I somehow did then I apologize.

But to clarify:

What I did mean to get across to you was that if a state were predominatly Baha'i to declare someone a covenant breaker and shunt them would amount to discrimination. Look at it this way according to law in the USA men's clubs must admit women because excluding them from these clubs would limit their ability to make social contacts that could be helpful in bussiness and other endeavors. Mind you this is considered significant discrimination yet the scope of these clubs are very limited both in location and the amount of time spent there. Can you imagine how significant the effect of discrimination would be if everyone were to avoid contact with you everywhere and at all times outside of a school or work setting? That is what would happen to a "covenant breaker" in a predominantly Baha'i community.

As for the stuff about Baha'u'llah, Islam and Mason Remey;

Your Baha'is might see it as Mason Remey broke the covenant by taking up the Guardianship while the Baha'is who follow Mason remey see it as he preserved the Baha'i covenant. This is completely analogous to how Muslims see it that Baha'u'llah broke to covenant of Muhammud while Baha'is believe that Baha'u'llah elevated it. That is why I say that the Baha'is are being hypocritical.

[Promethium]

Originally Posted by DynoMight

I'm a little bit confused here. Are you saying that if a registered Baha'i were to claim to be a manifestation of God they wouldn't be considered a covenant breaker?

Anyhow what I was getting at is that Islam considers the Bab and Baha'u'llah to be covenant breakers (heretics) just like the Baha'i consider Mason Remey to be a covenant breaker. As you can see this is a bit of a hypocritical stance on the part of the Baha'i.

Just think if Mason Remey and his followers were to live in a state that was predominantly Baha'i it would be virtually impossible for them not to be discriminated against. It would be like ... Oh I don't know ... perhaps like the treatment of the Baha'i community in Iran. Or maybe not that bad: just some old fashioned segregation like before the civil rights movement.

..."First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously upheld. For example, if a Bahá'í owes a debt to a person who breaks the Covenant he must be sure that it is repaid and that his obligations are met... "

(From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to a National Spiritual Assembly, October 29, 1974)

"People who have withdrawn from the Cause because they no longer feel that they can support its Teachings and Institutions sincerely, are not Covenant-breakers--they are non-Bahá'ís and should just be treated as such. Only those who ally themselves actively with known enemies of the Faith who are Covenant-breakers, and who attack the Faith in the same spirit as these people, can be considered, themselves, to be Covenant-breakers. As you know, up to the present time, no one has been permitted to pronounce anybody a Covenant-breaker but the Guardian himself."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to the National Spiritual Assembly of Canada, March 30, 1957)


"...Master likened it to leprosy, and warned the friends to breathe the same air was dangerous. This should not be taken literally; He meant when you are close enough to breathe the same air you are close enough to contact their corrupting influence. Your sister should never imagine she, loyal and devoted, has become a 'carrier'."
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, July 29, 1946)

After some study of the issue, one realizes it is actually quite hard to be declared a covenant breaker. Im not sure if we can fully predict what exactly will happen to covenant breakers in the future as that would rely on the actions actually taken by a Bahai community or Bahai society. But perhaps we can make predictions. This of course leaves us in the realm of speculation.

First of all you seem to compare covenant breaking to heretics. The word association brings up memories in the western mind of burning people at the stake and other atrocities comitted against religious dissidents. I do not believe the Bahai stance is comparable in that respect.
AS to the comparison between pre-civil rights treatment of blacks in America, It would seem contrary to the quoted statements above if children were denied education in Bahai schools or covenant breakers were not allowed to drink at the same water fountains as Bahais. First of all no children have ever been declared covenant breakers nor does it seem possible that any ever will be(Bahais believe the age for spiritual maturity is at 15). There is no physical ailment carried by covenant breakers, it is considered a spiritual affliction by Bahais.
Organizations like the military can dishonorably discharge someone from military service for fomenting divisive ideas. In the classroom students are often isolated from the classroom if they become too disruptive for the class. Often being sent to the principle for consultation about the behavior. This is because bad attitudes can become problematic if promoted by clever manipulation and can lead to the destruction of a particular organization or the hampering of its goals. The expulsion is to protect the goals and processes of the group. The Bahai Faith is a voluntary group at that. If one dislikes its ideas or wants to promote a claim one can simply leave. But if one persistantly tries to replace the groups ideas with his or her own or severely undermines its goals while claiming to be a part of it, than the situation becomes problematic.
Currently the only entity that can declare someone a covenant breaker is the Universal House of Justice. The UHJ investigates and consults with the person in question before a decision is made. You basically asked "If a registered Bahai declares themselves a manifestation of God would they be considered a covenant breaker?
Currently, the answer to this is it depends. For a Bahai to even be considered a covenant breaker he or she would have to disseminate their claims and consistently propagate/campaign their point of view and even then meet with the administration and UHJ first. An off the cuff remark would not draw attention from the Administration. I contend even claiming to be a manifestation in just private conversation would probably not draw an administrative sanction either.
Certain Muslim societies deny basic human rights to Bahais. But a Bahai societies should theoretically safeguard the human rights of all its minorites. I believe Bahais would be strongly warned not to socialize with covenant breakers in that society, they would not be forced. Also covenant breakers would probably still be free to propose their ideas.

[Promethium]

[quote=DynoMight;81279]
What I did mean to get across to you was that if a state were predominatly Baha'i to declare someone a covenant breaker and shunt them would amount to discrimination. Look at it this way according to law in the USA men's clubs must admit women because excluding them from these clubs would limit their ability to make social contacts that could be helpful in bussiness and other endeavors. Mind you this is considered significant discrimination yet the scope of these clubs are very limited both in location and the amount of time spent there. Can you imagine how significant the effect of discrimination would be if everyone were to avoid contact with you everywhere and at all times outside of a school or work setting? That is what would happen to a "covenant breaker" in a predominantly Baha'i community.
quote]

"With regard to avoiding association with declared Covenant-breakers. Shoghi Effendi says that this does not mean that if one or more of these attends a non-Bahá'í meeting any Bahá'ís present should feel compelled to leave the meeting or to refuse to take part in the meeting, especially if that part has been prearranged. Also if in the course of some business transaction it should become necessary to negotiate with one of these people, in order to clear up the business, that is permissible, provided the association is confined to the matter of the business in hand. It is different if one of these people should come to Bahá'í meeting. Then it would become necessary to ask him in a most tactful and dignified way to leave the meeting as Bahá'ís are forbidden to associate with him."
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, May 16, 1925)

Mens Clubs were discriminating against women based on the inherent trait of gender. Covenant breaking is not reliant on race, gender, or merely inherent religious affiliation. First of all the human rights of the individual in a Bahai populated society should be safeguarded. This means that they will be allowed into business transactions with Bahais and will not be shunned in meetings that relate to matters of business. There will probably be no "secret Bahai meetings" that exclude others when it come to affairs of the government as it would not be fair to its minority constituents. Covenant breakers would not be allowed into Bahai religious meetings because they obviously violated the rules of the religion. Comparable to if a woman went into the Mens club and started promoting terrorism. This may violate the rules of the mens club and
pervert the goals of the organization, the organization would have reasonable justification to sanction the offending member. Again in a Bahai society just being a covenant breaker will not be enough grounds to expel them from a lets say a chess club much less a business meeting within the Bahai society. Although the chess club would probably dissolve since many of the Bahais would leave. As in the case of the chess club, it would definitely be reasonable for Bahais to be "forced" by law to remain a part of it once a covenant breaker joins if Bahais leaving the club would "limit their(CB) ability to make social contacts that could be helpful in bussiness and other endeavors."

"every organized community enlisted under the banner of Bahá'u'lláh should feel it to be its first and inescapable obligation to nurture, encourage, and safeguard every minority belonging to any faith, race, class, or nation within it. "
(Shoghi Effendi, Advent of Divine Justice, p. 35)

I hope this clears up any misconceptions of the possible dynamics of a Bahai society. Any statements made by me are not binding or athoritative Bahai viewpoints.