something a friend said....

[diamondsouled]

Dear Art,

I would never pass judgement on the spiritual state or the spiritual identity of any person, including Universal House of Justice members.

I point to actual facts of behavior and of words though, words which are in the public record.

For example, Universal House of Justice's Peter Khan's ranting and railing against the entire Baha'i community in New Zealand is a matter of public record. That he personally called into question the spiritual state of that entire community is factual. If you wish I will quote those words from both Douglas Martin as well as Peter Khan.

Words of Douglas' which not only do not recognize the sacredness of the freedom of conscience, the freedom to conscientiously give voice to conscience, but which do not even recognise that such sacred rights are as well unalienable human rights. Words of Peter Khans' which not only pass judgement on the spiritual state of one individual Baha'i but which pass judgement on the spiritual state of an entire national community of Baha'is simply because Alison Marshall calls that nation home.

That the members Universal House of Justice will be called to account for setting up their own interpretational standard of qualification for Baha'i membership, something they are neither scripturally or spiritually authorized to do, is between them and God. When I point out actual words and behaviors of individual House members which clearly contradict the Teachings it is not only my right to do so, it is my duty.

There is only us, we are them, ' as one soul '.

Yours Larry Rowe

[arthra]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Would you recommend another thread to discuss the Universeal House of Justice??




I'm not sure what the exact position is being taken, but if someone is in authority within the Baha'i faith, then are they not also held account to it, as with any leading figure in any religious group?

This of course presumes that we're still dealing with issues of faith and that we're not verging into libellous territory...

Regarding the initial topic yes I think Larry's direction is offtopic..

Regarding a former member of the House of Justice if they speak for themselves they have no authority and besides there was no direct quote or source given.

Brian, if you'd like to assume moderator status here go ahead... I'll resign.

- Art

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by arthra

there was no direct quote or source given.

That would certainly be interesting - Larry, do you have any cites or links to the material you're attributing to Universal House of Justice members?

Originally Posted by arthra

Brian, if you'd like to assume moderator status here go ahead... I'll resign.

Simply asking the direction that this thread needs to go, and how points it raises need to be addressed - I've already received a couple of PM's about this thread, so I'm interested to see in what way we should ensure it remains most constructive.

[diamondsouled]

Dear Art,

The topic is triumphalism in the Baha'i Faith.

I would argue that this triumphalism can be traced directly to the top administrative body in the Baha'i Faith Iself, the Universal House of Justice. I would argue as well that this triumphalism has been facillitated and fostered through the myth of the infallibilty of that body, a myth the Universal House of Justice encourages. I point to such words and behaviors that I have shared, of the Universal House of Justice Itself as well as individual members of that House, as a proof that belief in the Universal House of Justice's infallibility is in fact a myth and not a reality.

Triumphalism within religion can always be traced to the leaders of religion as Baha'u'llah so eloquently pointed out in His Kitab-i-Iqan. Whether the leaders of religion call themselves Popes, Mullas, Rabbis, Lamas or House members does not differenciate them. What would differenciate them are their words and their deeds.

There is only us, we are them, 'as one soul'.

Yours Larry

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by ISFP

... it seems (from what i've heard from Baha'is) that Baha'is believe that in light of Bahaullah's revelation, the other religions become, in a word, obsolete in that they lack what Bahaullah's message contained.

however, this is not explained at all top outsiders to the religion. the watered-down idea of "religious unity" is often used on non-Baha'is to (and i quote a practicing Baha'i friend!) "get them through the door".

In being a Baha'i, the idea of the respect for all the religions is not an arbitrary idea. It has implications. I've had prolonged discussions with fundamentalist Christians about Bible verses. We would write long treateses to eachother (and this was in the day before many texts were available for easy cut and paste.) While we differed on interpritation often, there was a grudging respect expressed that we took the Bible seriously. And the very same feeling, I would content, is a bias Baha'is have about all the religions and faith traditions of the world - one of respect, of wanting to learn what is said thoughout, and looking for the truth of it. However from more than alittle experience I would content that many members of religions favor their own scriptures to the exclusion of others, and when given license by majority and political power often enforced some scheme by which unrespected religions would be systematically, and forcefully, oppressed.

I have continued to study religions and scriptures since becoming a Baha'i and I am hardly unique. But I am a Baha'i. I read a very great deal of Baha'i scripture and that seems thoroughly natural and appropriate.

Moreover I feel your sense of how Baha'is act with outsiders and insiders a bit strained compared to my experience. There are many Baha'is who even find the terminology of "us" and "them", Baha'is and non-Baha'is, as bothersome. However there is a realm of terminology Baha'is have from their Scripture. Her in public we tend to use the terms in common use - Prophets, Jesus as Son of God, denominations etc. Nor am I saying Baha'is use these words purely for the sake of communication - they are very real terms to Baha'is. But we have other terminology as well - Manifestations, Jesus as the Face of God, Covenants, and so on. To use specific terminology among those who hardly know it would seem rude, would it not?

It is also true that the Founders of the Religions, and Their Scriptures, are not arbitrary events and documents. Among other things, they often speak of eachother. People find such comments distressing sometimes because it means the meaning handed down with some teaching is wrong somehow. While the point is not to dwell on differences, it isn't to ignore what is said either. To the extent that every Revelation was meant to awaken the heart they each "save" and are worthy. But in accepting a plurality of Revelations, one must deal with what they say, or hazard a blind spot that was actually pointed as something that needed further comment and guidance. This does not mean in any simple way that one scripture supercedes the prior and one aught not read it. Indeed since one comments on the other, it would be a failure to understand the scripture at hand if one did not read the other!!

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by diamondsouled

Hello Lunamoth,

The cause of the discrepancy as you term I understand to be human nature based.

Rob Preece elaborates on the dynamic which causes such dissonance and or discrepancy, from a Buddhist outlook.

He uses Jung's architypes of Senex and Puer Aeternus religionists to describe the dynamic that manifests itself in religion. That the parallels between his descriptions of how these natural dynamics have effected Buddhism and the present dynamic within the Baha'i Faith are stark is a big eye opener, that is if you are open to having your eyes opened.

Another investigation could be done in light of the Baha'i scripture _The Seven Valleys_. These are my own views of course - any simple summary of a scripture can only be a pov about it. It is itself what it is.

First one is all about questions, and not really wanting answers. Then one is all about an Answer undeniable - finally the truth is revealed and the questions fade to their proper nothingness. There is a natural tension between one only wishing questions and one wanting only the answer. Resolving the tension requires understanding the relationship of truths and that things depend on a point of view or of process. Then, as truth in our lives is something we choose to accept on our own terms, we can find, like the wind, that any pov can relate to the truth if it but turned in the right direction, it's own direction, but in harmony to all others. But people can as easily turn in every other direction, distracted from the truth by whatever captivates. And the adventure continues much further, because all along one has thought one knew what the truth was, even as it continued to reveal greater depth and detail as one grew in appreciation of it.

Just because one is a Baha'i doesn't place one automatically at the end of that journey!! Indeed one could be a Baha'i and not even started the journey. There are people who feel they can only declare themselves Baha'i when they have achieved an illumined state that does not fail. Others sign a paper when a friendly face presents it and no other reason.

People are in different places about this journey.

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by ISFP

another point of tension with non-Baha'is regarding the nuances of Baha'i doctrine is the doctrine that, while all religions are part of the same unfolding revelation, that these religions' messages become obsolete in light of Bahaullah's revelations.

I suppose it comes down to whether you wish to examine the Baha'i Faith on the basis of the Baha'is you find, in whatever state they may be in just like everyone else on the planet, or how the Faith has changed them, which will require getting to know them rather better than in an average public meeting, and beyond even that, there is the question of what you think the Scripture of the Baha'i Faith actually says. I hazard you will find some not changed at all while others would be unrecognizable for all the right reasons - and most inbetween.

As you are fond of noting that other notes, the Baha'i Faith is a growing religion. Clearly some must feel impressed, and willing to be changed by it, accepting the truth they find, and find truths they didn't expect.

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by diamondsouled

If religion is one beyond all diversity of human interpretation just exatctly what business does the Universal House of Justice has removing fellow coreligionists from that 'one religion' simply because of their 'human interpretations'?

Because religion is one, despite human interpritation, and allowing faulty human stances on the truth to supplant truth itself, is, among other things, Their duty to prevent, as it was of all the Central Figures of the Faith before.

The above statement is not simply an affirmation of every possible way of thinking. It is a statement that truth is something that can be reflected in every single human life, but which need not be a governing principle of every single human life - indeed that life can be corrupted and a cause of great suffering. Such suffering itself testifies that there is truth, but unappreciated.

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

... if someone is in authority within the Baha'i faith, then are they not also held account to it, as with any leading figure in any religious group?

This of course presumes that we're still dealing with issues of faith and that we're not verging into libellous territory...

Indeed and a thin path that can become.

But to answer your question, members of the Universal House of Justice, the final authority available in the present Baha'i Faith, are elected every 5 years. It is a secret ballot and in procedure.

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by diamondsouled

Dear Art,

The topic is triumphalism in the Baha'i Faith.

I would argue that this triumphalism can be traced directly to the top administrative body in the Baha'i Faith Iself, the Universal House of Justice.

If you were still a Baha'i which you are not by your own testimony, then such issues would be possible topics, within bounds of responsible discourse, through Baha'i channels - I concede such an extreme position would be hard to gain enough respectability to get much of an audience for discussion. But I have heard it in a few cases.

As you are not a Baha'i, and the Faith has no mechanism to change is structure or norms on the basis of social commentary or influence, I suppose your comments serve no purpose for the Faith itself.

As for the topic of triumphalism, I would note some very explicit references that the Baha'i Faith is not endless - that there will be future Manifestations of God. However there surely is some sense that this is the day the truths of the Baha'i Faith are meant for - and that the triumph of the Baha'i Faith (not truely in numbers but in the promulgation of the teachings and guidance of Baha'u'llah) is something we feel would be a very good thing - that the partisan politics, and religious intolerance be turned into respect and care and support and community would do very well by the world!

But at the essence of triumphalism is the sense that "I" or "we" a *right* and others are wrong. I would suppose everyone feels this way sooner or later. But a far more enduring understanding is that we are at our best when we commit ourselves to the truth, and we are at our worst when we forget the truth and become preoccupied with ourselves. The topic is certainly refered to in the Baha'i Scripture (as in others.)

[diamondsouled]

Howdy Art,

The following relates closely to the topic of triumphalism in that it is one of its major symptoms: the inflation of Baha'i membership claims from an actual 1.5 to 2 million, to a number exceeding 6 million.

Even though I am no longer a Baha'i on paper that is irrelevant seeing that the Administrative Order has rendered such membership meaningless.

The Baha'i Administrative Order's claim that there are some 3 million Baha'is in India is bogus. The true number of Baha'is if membership requirements were the same in India as they are in North America would be far less perhaps in the 100,000 to 200,000 range. Why? Because in India a person is not required to quit their former religious affiliation to become a Baha'i but only to recognise Baha'u'llah as one of many Avatars. A thumb print is all it takes and then bingo you're on the rolls. Doesn't matter if you still consider youself to be a Hindu, doesn't matter if you're a believer in Ganesh, Shiva or Krishna and have a shrine to them in your home. All it takes is the magic thumb print and agreeing that Baha'u'llah was one of many avatars.

A paper on the subject by William Garlington, a scholar on the Baha'i Faith, is available at : http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/bhpapers/india1.htm

I suggest that anyone wanting to know the truth about the actual number of Baha'is in the world read this informative and enlightening paper.

The truth is that I'm more of a Baha'i than the majority of those that the Administrative Order counts as Baha'is in India even though my name is no longer on their list. Why? Because my mother became a Baha'i in 1960 when I was seven years of age and through her introducting me to Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha' I fell in love, and still am. Why? Because I was raised as a Baha'i child and youth and took a full two years of thought to decide to sign my name. No thumb print on a card which only acknowledges that Baha'u'llah was one of many Avatars. Two years of contemplation on what the resoncibilties were of being a Baha'i before I put my name on that card. I knew very well I was a person of Baha' before I signed that card and still I took two years to decide to sign. Why? Because the responcibility of being Baha'i to me was of such great importance; it is for this same reason that I recently resigned from a Baha'i Faith that no longer reflects the spirit and meaning of Baha'u'llah's revealed utterances.

Being Baha'i is more than putting a thumb print on a piece of paper, more than putting your signature on a card, it is being true to Baha'u'llah's revealed utterances even if that involves withdrawal from the community which bears His name.

The dictates of triumphalism have become more of a motivator for the Baha'i Administrative Order and specifically The Universal House of Justice than Baha'u'llah's revealed utterances. Wordly prestiege and highly inflated membership claims have become more important to them than the accomodation of their own coreligionists.

There is only us, we are them, 'as one soul'.

Yours Larry

[ISFP]

Originally Posted by smkolins

As you are fond of noting that other notes, the Baha'i Faith is a growing religion. Clearly some must feel impressed, and willing to be changed by it, accepting the truth they find, and find truths they didn't expect.

this is true, smkolins. i did not say the Baha'i faith was in any way becoming "less popular". quite the contrary, as far as anyone can tell. if at the end of the day one's religious beliefs bring them peace within themselves and with others, that is a good thing.

i was merely explaining my own warriness of Baha'i doctrine and some irregularities i've noticed between "outward" and "inward" presentation of doctrinal points, things which have lead me away from the Baha'i Faith as a whole. i am concerened that these irregularities, not being well defined publically, are a form of deception on the part of the Baha'i Faith in their relations and self-presentation to outsiders.

[BruceDLimber]

Sorry, Larry, but that's mere hot air.

Not only do you expose yourself and your biased attitudes by the fact that you can't be bothered to refer to Shoghi Effeidi in a courteous, non-juvenile manner, but you totally IGNORE the fact that the House of Justice was established in the Baha'i scriptures, and that the Baha'i Covenant is quite specific and explicit. Our scriptures assign the House of Justice specific duties and roles, and it does its best to fulfill these!

And it's grossly misleading to refer to the invididuals you mentioned as "co-religionists": the fact that they are specifically and intentionally violating the Baha'i Covenant makes clear that they are NOT "co-religionists" of Baha'is, but in fact opponents of the Baha'i Faith!

The Baha'i Faith does indeed promote free exercise of conscience, little as you like to admit this. Pointing out a tiny group trying to destroy the Baha'i Covenant hardly qualifies as any legitimate sort of "exception" to this.

Just the facts.

I'm tempted to repeat the famous quote, "If you can't say something constructive, then say nothing!"

Bruce

[diamondsouled]

Dear Bruce,

We are encouraged in the Writings to use those Writings to confirm and verify what we are stating, this I do. We are encouraged to use politeness and eloquence to express ourselves, I do this to the best of my ability.

I always attempt to remain polite in how I express myself; as well I do not resort to adhominum, does that make me juvenile?

Sometimes in order to be constructive, myths have to be deconstructed.

Your suggestion that the individuals that I have referred to as coreiligionists are violators of the Covenant, is not only a slur it is misinformed.

Neither Juan Cole, Alison Marshall nor Michael McKenny have ever been accused by any Baha'i institution of violating the Covenant.

Juan Cole resigned from the Faith after he became aware of private comments Douglas Martin had made to another Baha'i which referred to him as a Covenant Breaker. His heart was broken to think that a fellow coreligionist would back bite him in this vilest of manners.

Alison Marshall was excommunicated from the Baha'i Faith because the Universal House of Justice had passed judgement on her Baha'i beliefs. With no authority to do so the Universal House of Justice set up It's Own interpretational standard for qualification for Baha'i membership based on the personal interpretations of individual members of the Universal House of Justice. Neither the Universal House of Justice nor the New Zealand N.S.A. has ever specified just exactly which beliefs of Alison's have disqualified her from Baha'i membership.

Michael McKenny was excommunicated from the Baha'i Faith for believing that Baha'u'llah's and Abdu'l-Baha's Teachings of the two winged aspect of humanity are true. He was excommunicated for publicly expressing his personal interpretation that when Baha'u'llah referred to the members of the House of Justice as 'rihal' it referred to women as well as to men. He was excommunicated for publicly and conscientiously expressing his belief, based on his personal interpretations, that women will make the Universal House of Justice two winged at some point in the future.

Your quickness to condemn fellow coreligionists who you have never met and know little of is cultish to the nth degree. I suggest, that you do as Abdu'l-Baha' suggested and "draw no lines"; I suggest that you see no one as an enemy but all humanity as friends. Perhaps this would heal you of such cultish words and behavior. Perhaps if the Universal House of Justice applied Abdu'l-Baha's Teachings and drew no lines and saw no one as their enemy they would be worthy of Their name.

"Let them see no one as their enemy, or as wishing them ill, but think of all humankind as their friends; regarding the alien as an intimate, the stranger as a companion, staying free of prejudice, drawing no lines."

(Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 1)

There is only us, we are them, 'as one soul'.

Yours Larry

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by ISFP

i am concerened that these irregularities, not being well defined publically, are a form of deception on the part of the Baha'i Faith in their relations and self-presentation to outsiders.

I encourage you to share your thoughts frankly and clearly, with respect, to those whom you are in the company of. I would be curious as to the progress of the issues as you see them.