Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Ruth White

Well-Known Member
Messages
72
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Michigan, USA - reformbahai at comcast dot net
Long suppressed by Bahais of other denominations, Reform Bahais have returned to, and renewed, Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant
Abdu'l-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant

"After Abdul-Baha—whenever the Universal House of Justice is organized it will ward off differences."

Of the several Bahai denominations, the Reform Bahai Faith is the only denomination that follows Abdul-Baha'is authentic Covenant— delivered in New York, which is why it came to be called the City of the Covenant—not the fraudulent will and testament of 1921.

An Analysis of Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant
Comments on Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant

"Address upon the Covenant" by Abdul-Baha in text format:

New York City, June 19th, 1912.
Translated by Dr. Ameen U. Fareed.
Parentheses supplied.


Tomorrow I wish to go to Montclair [New Jersey]. Today is the last day in which we gather together with you to say farewell to you. Therefore, I wish to expound for you an important question, and that question concerns The Covenant.

In former cycles no distinct Covenant had been made in writing by the Supreme Pen; no distinct personage had been appointed to be the Standard differentiating falsehood from truth, so that whatsoever he was to say was to stand as truth and that which he repudiated was to be known as falsehood. At most, His Holiness Jesus Christ gave only an intimation, a symbol, and that was but an indication of the solidity of Peter’s faith. When he mentioned his faith, His Holiness said, “Thou art Peter”- which means rock-“and upon this rock will I build my church.” This was a sanction of Peter’s faith; it was not indicative of his (Peter) being the expounder of the Book, but was a confirmation of Peter’s faith.

But in this dispensation of the Blessed Beauty, (Baha’u’llah) among its distinctions is that He did not leave people in perplexity. He entered into a covenant and testament with the people. He appointed a Center of the Covenant. He wrote with His own pen and revealed it in the Kitab-el-Akdas, the Book of Laws, the Book of the Covenant, appointing him (Abdul-Baha) the Expounder of the Book. You must ask him Abdul-Baha) regarding the meanings of the texts of the verses. Whatsoever he says is correct. Outside of this, in numerous tablets He (Baha’u’llah) has explicitly recorded it, with clear, sufficient, valid and forceful statements. In the tablet of The Branch He explicitly states, “Whatsoever The Branch says is right, or correct; and every person must obey The Branch with his life, with his heart, with his tongue. Without his will not a word shall anyone utter.” This is an explicit text of the Blessed Beauty. So there is no rescue left for anybody. No soul shall, of himself, speak anything. Whatsoever his (Abdul-Baha’s) tongue utters, whatsoever his pen records, that is correct; according to the explicit text of Baha’u’llah in the tablet of The Branch.

His Holiness Abraham covenanted with regard to Moses. His Holiness Moses was the Promised One of Abraham, and He, Moses, covenanted with regard to His Holiness Christ, saying that Christ was the Promised One. His Holiness Christ covenanted with regard to His Holiness “The Paraclete,” which means His Holiness Mohammed. His Holiness Mohammed covenanted as regards The Bab, whom He called, “My Promised One,” His Holiness The Bab, in all His books, in all His epistles, explicitly covenanted with regard to the Blessed Beauty, Baha’u’llah—-that Baha’u’llah was the Promised One of His Holiness The Bab. His Holiness Baha’u’llah covenanted, not that I (Abdul-Baha) am the Promised One, but that Abdul-Baha is the Expounder of the Book and The Center of His Covenant, and that the Promised One of Baha’u’llah will appear after one thousand or thousands of years. This is the Covenant which Baha’u’llah made. If a person shall deviate, he is not acceptable at the Threshold of Baha’u’llah. In case of difference—Abdul-Baha must be consulted. They must revolve around his good pleasure. After Abdul-Baha—whenever the Universal House of Justice is organized it will ward off differences.

Now I pray for you that GOD may aid you, may confirm you, may appoint you for His service; that He may suffer you to be as radiant candles; that He may accept you in His Kingdom; that He may make you the cause of the spread of the light of Baha’u’llah in these countries, and that the teachings of Baha’u’llah may be spread broadcast.

I pray for you, and I am pleased with all of you, each one, one by one; and I pray that GOD may aid and confirm you. From Montclair I will come back to you. New York is favored, I go away and I come back to it. The friends in New York must appreciate this. At present, farewell to you!


Published November the Twelfth,
nineteen hundred and twelve.

The ninety-fifth anniversary of the birth
of Baha’u’llah.

The Bahai Assembly of Washington, D.C.

An Analysis of Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant
Comments on Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant

Reform Bahai Faith
http://www.ReformBahai.org
 
wil said:
How large is the reformed Baha'i denomination?

What cities have meetings?
Click to expand...

Thanks for your interest.

We're a small denomination. Like many, especially at our stage of growth, we don't disclose our membership statistics, primarily because there are other Baha'i denominations that seek to harass and undermine our development, as the recent lawsuit in the US Federal Courts clearly demonstrated.

Februrary 20, 2009 - 3-minute Mp3 Recording - Oral Argument
Judge Diane S. Sykes remarked about the implications of the Wilmette-Baha'i lawsuit that it "Clearly raises some Constitutional concerns."
Judge Bauer queried the lawyer for the Wilmette denomination, in terms basically about our right to exist and develop, "How about Reform Baha'i?" (scroll down for text or list to the 3-minute mp3 excerpt.)
Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience

The verdict of the Court was delivered *three* times that the Reform Bahai Faith and all other Bahai denominations have, under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, the right to exist. Obviously that includes the Haifan Baha'is, who regularly seek, along the Shiite lines reimposed on the Bahai Movement by the spurious will and testament, to deny (takfir) the existence of other Bahais, essentially denouncing them as infidels (kufir) and apostates, reminiscent of the worst in the Islamic heritage, which both Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha had clearly moved away from, the former writing specifically that he had "removed from the Book" such things.

While the decision was taken not to announce our meetings ahead of time online, any longer, you can consult, if interested, our RBF Update page which was formerly used for such things. The Reform Bahai Faith remains an active Bahai denomination, participating in religious meetings and activities, sharing the vision, teachings, and interpretation of Abdul-Baha, on and off line. For example, I and other Reform Bahais participated yesterday in a Red Cross blood drive for Muslims for Life, sponsored by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.
Reform Bahai Faith, Update

There's a very long history of Haifan-Wilmette Baha'is using back-channel communications to smear and discredit individuals, denominations, and websites, and others, with sys ops, moderators, administrators, and so forth, along the lines suggested above, leading thereby to the suppression of dissident voices. The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience documents decades of that sort of thing, on and off line.
The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience

The US Federal Courts have spoken on our right to exist. You might find the letters of the Reform Bahai Faith submitted to the Court of note along these lines, toward the bottom:

Reform Bahai Faith, Amici Curiae

Hope this helps.
 
Re: Afghan Supreme Court rules Bahai Apostates

I, Brian:

"Ruth White, you obviously believe very passionately about your position, and that is to be respected.

However, please note this is an interfaith forum - we're here to gain inputs from people of all different faiths. This is not about making judgements about specific faiths, trying to extoll one over another, and especially not about trying to diminish any specific faith here.

This, however, seems to be your remit.

In which case, I can only politely inform you that this thread will need to be closed and that I don't expect any more threads or posts which seek only to undermine another faith, not matter how sincere your arguments are intended.

If you wish to take the position of "Reform Baha'i" and provide your own personal insight in general discussion topics based on this, then that will be all well and good.

However, as to your comments on Shogi Effendi and the "Haifan Baha'is" - you've made that point clear, we've heard, but we're moving on now. It's entirely your decision as to whether you wish to validate your position by remaining with us in the manner of interfaith dialogue as stated."
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/251840-post14.html


Dear I, Brian,

I'm surprised to return from a little holiday to discover your post. Sorry if you've taken offense!

I'm responding here in this thread because I'm able to, since the one you addressed me in seems to be "closed."

I'm glad you respect passion, but I prefer reason, logic, and evidence, which is why I have been very careful to *document* my arguments and thoughts. To reduce my posts to "passion" doesn't seem quite fair to me, if you don't mind my saying so. I invite you to read the suppressed history of the Bahai Movement and the relevant documents, if you haven't.

I believe it's also fair to point out that the apparent members of the Haifan Baha'i denomination here have not provided much, if any, evidence that they've seriously read and considered the sources I've cited, such as Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant, published repeatedly in the Star of the West, the only Bahai magazine of the time, from 1910 to 1921, and central to the unfolding of the Bahai Cause in the West.

I do apologize if you feel I've been too vigorous in expressing my opinions. Alas, we human beings do believe things, and inevitably others think otherwise. I have tried to be broad and open minded, as in my discussion with Radarmark, mentioning Fritjof Schuon, Fox, the Quakers, and other Perennialists. http://www.interfaith.org/forum/250452-post30.html

I assure you that my posts do not "seek only to undermine another faith." Quite the contrary. As with Christianity, Islam, what have you, knowing the *actual* history is essential, and where there is significant divergence on what that history was, in any faith, I would think thoughtful minds would want to know it so that they might weigh the matter for themselves, not merely accepting the duplicities of the Vatican or the local imam.

I don't claim to have the exclusive truth about the Bahai teachings, but I know the version most people accept as representative of it is not based on Abdul-Baha's actual interpretation of Baha'u'llah for the modern world. That may not matter to you, but it does matter. As a sincere believe of any faith, or most, I believe I have a duty to not hide the Light under a basket. I'm not afraid to hear the opinions of other Bahais or of non-Bahais hearing the criticism Haifans have of the Reform Bahai Faith. I ask only for what John Milton aptly put into words, "Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." I recall the Roman Forum was open to different opinions.

Nevertheless, I'll try harder not to hurt the feelings of others, while inviting others to make an effort too.

Best wishes.
 
Well Ruth, I can't speak for Brian, but I think he wants from you more about what you DO believe, instead of just "Those other guys are wrong."
Statements like "the apparent members of the Haifan Baha'i denomination here have not provided much, if any, evidence that they've seriously read..." etc. are just not really helpful. If they don't want to rehash these old quarrels, they're not under obligation to; just because nobody bothers to fight with you, doesn't mean that you're thereby proven to be in the right.
wil said:
How large is the reformed Baha'i denomination?

What cities have meetings?
Click to expand...
I tried doing some research on the sizes of these various groups, and found that this is rather difficult:

1) the "Baha'i World Faith" is the group loyal to the UHJ "Universal House of Justice" in Haifa (and in the US, the NSA "National Spiritual Assembly"). Estimates of the membership range from 3 to 6 million. One problem is India, where there are nominally over 2 million, but many are low-castes who find it convenient to adopt any religious identity except "Hindu" (there are lots of nominal "Buddhists" and "Christians" for the same reason); the depth of their commitment is often questioned, and they complain that no Indians ever get high posts in the organization, although on paper India is the largest NSA. Another problem is that in Western countries, a lot of people drift in and out, and don't bother to cancel membership if they've lost interest in Bahai activities-- but may still combine Bahai ideas with eclectic New Age-y thought. The problem of how many "real" members there are isn't unique, of course: in Italy "everybody" is Catholic but few go to mass; how many "real" Catholics are there? Let's just say "a few" million of the Haifan Bahais.

2) "Unenrolled Bahai" are those who won't take the pledge of loyalty to the UHJ, having some problem with the whole concept of a Vatican-like authority, but aren't hostile to or excluded by the Haifans (on a chat-site I found one of them joking about being an "unhaifanated" Bahai). I found one estimate that 98% of people who call themselves Bahai are officially "enrolled" which would seem to leave a couple hundred thousand of "unenrolled", few of which apparently have any connection to the dissident denominations.

3) "Unitarian Bahai" is the remnant of the first schism. Bahaullah the prophet had two sons, Abdul Baha and Muhammad Ali, who were supposed to direct the group one after the other, but Muhammad Ali wouldn't wait his turn wanting some power and influence while Abdul Baha was still alive, leading to a big family feud and Abdul Baha trusting no-one in his family except young grandson Shoghi Effendi. Nowadays the only descendants of the family are descended from the branches that rebelled against Abdul Baha but-- none of them are interested in the quarrel anymore, or in claiming leadership. The groups that used to be of this schism decided to join the Unitarian Universalists, since UU's have no problem with "members" who also consider themselves "members" of something else. How many of these there are is hard to gauge because they have no separate structure; hundreds? thousands?

4) "Free Bahai" and "Reform Bahai" may have been two separate groups at one time, but if so the "Reform Bahai" is the only active group now, as far as I can see. This is from the second schism, Ruth White contesting the authenticity of the will naming Shoghi Effendi as "Guardian of the Faith". The membership may be down to single digits by now.

5) "Orthodox Bahai" believed that a unitary, monarchical "Guardian" had to stay in control; the third schism started when a 9-member UHJ was instituted following some years of confusion after Shoghi Effendi died without a will. Mason Remey, whom the Effendi had named head of a "Bahai Council" before then dissolving this Council, declared himself the Second Guardian; he became increasingly erratic, splintering this movement into subsects:

a) the Orthodox Bahai who were the principal defendants in the latest lawsuit have Joel Marangella as the Third Guardian; he was given a sealed envelope "open at my death" by Remey, which turned out to be an appointment as the next Guardian, and he decided that remained valid even though in the intervening years Remey had booted him out and named somebody else. They have about 40 members left, all very elderly.

b) the OB "under the living Guardianship" followed Remey's later choice, and now have a Fourth Guardian, Jacques Shogomanian, who has become a recluse and hardly communicates with anyone; he has, however, made clear that the Fifth Guardian has been chosen, although the identity is a tightly guarded secret. All organizational structures have been allowed to lapse.

c) the OB "under the Regency" believe that the Guardianship is vacant, but will be re-filled someday, somehow. They operate a retreat center in New Mexico to which anybody calling themselves Bahai is welcome; they exclude no-one, and therefore do not call anybody "members" of their group either.

d) the OB "under the Covenant": a rather crazed person named Jensen, who eventually did time for child molestation, decided that Remey's secretary must be the next Guardian, although this secretary had become totally tired of Bahai affairs and refused to have anything to do with Jensen; so of course Jensen promoted himself to Guardian, and later a crazier person named Chase, who has gotten into the newspapers sometimes with end-of-the-world prophecies that keep on not happening, claimed to be his successor and pretty much drove away the whole following of this group, also named as defendants in the litigation but now apparently down to a membership of 1.

e) the OB "under the Manifestation": an author named Carre (not the spy-novel author John le Carre) promoted himself beyond Guardian to the new Manifestation of God, got few takers, and eventually gave up; present membership 0.
 
bob x said:
... ; present membership 0.
Click to expand...

Precisely!

And as 'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi have asserted, the Baha'i Faith itself will survive and endure, while these other groups not only keep splitting but keep going extinct!

Most of the remaining groups--other than the Baha'i Faith itself--number only a very few people--hundreds at most, compared with seven million Baha'is! Further, some of those groups may in fact be comprised solely of one or two very vocal individuals who are very good at promoting themselves on the Internet while in fact having no "following" whatever!

Precisely why Baha'is feel they can largely be ignored.

And the claims of the ORIGINAL Ruth White and her ilk were thoroughly refuted in an 850-page book titled Making the Crooked Straight which you may be able to read yourself if you ask around among the Baha'is.

Regards, :)

Bruce
 
bob x said:
Well Ruth, I can't speak for Brian, but I think he wants from you more about what you DO believe, instead of just "Those other guys are wrong."
Click to expand...

Yes, Bob, let's "start over," as you said in the other thread, and highlight the positive. Since truth is positive, I observe,

1) Some have even argued less than a few million, with about ten thousand in India. You do the math on the actual percentage of 2 million.... By the way it used to be THREE MILLION, but widespread criticism of the deception brought it down some years ago. For reliable statistics, see ravi.kumar, former Baha'i NSA member of India
Google Groups

2) Disinformation is a Baha'i forte... You might want to reassess your trust in any source, especially on the Internet, even if it purports to be neutral Haifan, if you're interested in truth. There's a long history of disinformation.

3) Ditto.

4) Whatever account you're relying on is incorrect in numerous ways. And there's much more history involved than you realize or the Haifans want you to know.

5) Ditto. Getting all this from Haifan sources? Talk to the Orthodox Baha'is, and others, if interested at, Open Directory - Society: Religion and Spirituality: Baha'ism


On the postive side, please reread Abdul-Baha's actual 1912 covenant at the start of this thread. You may find it thoroughly documented as authentic by Google's scanning of the copies of the Star of the West magazine at

Star of the West - Bahá'í Temple Unity, National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States and Canada - Google Books

Abdul-Baha's Address Upon the Covenant was first published in Star of the West, November 23, 1912, 9-10; again, a mere year later in Star of the West, November 23, 1913, p. 234-9; and just before his death, emphasizing the importance of the 1912 Covenant exactly when Bahais needed to recall Abul-Baha's guidance the most, in Star of the West November 23, 1921. The reader may corroborate independently this publishing history of the Address Upon the Covenant since the entire 1912 to 1913 and 1920 to 1921 volumes of Star of the West can be download directly from Google Books.

Similarly, on a positive note, As far back as 1929 early Bahais were publicly emphasizing the importance of the Address Upon the Covenant. See Ruth White, Appendix to Abdul-Baha and the Promised Age, 1929, and her comments on this passage, bottom of the first page. Also see, Star of the West, Vol. VII, No. 15. p. 139: "When the Universal House of Justice is organized...." Comments on Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant

Ruth White book at Ruth White

Hope this helps.
 
BruceDLimber said:
Precisely!

And as 'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi have asserted, the Baha'i Faith itself will survive and endure, while these other groups not only keep splitting but keep going extinct!

Most of the remaining groups--other than the Baha'i Faith itself--number only a very few people--hundreds at most, compared with seven million Baha'is! Further, some of those groups may in fact be comprised solely of one or two very vocal individuals who are very good at promoting themselves on the Internet while in fact having no "following" whatever!

Precisely why Baha'is feel they can largely be ignored.

And the claims of the ORIGINAL Ruth White and her ilk were thoroughly refuted in an 850-page book titled Making the Crooked Straight which you may be able to read yourself if you ask around among the Baha'is.

Regards, :)

Bruce
Click to expand...

I'm not sure Bruce is being *positive* here. Anyone else notice it? It's okay, though, it doesn't bother me. I respect his conscience. He has a right to it, one which I defend, as we all should.

The seven million number is highly inflated, as suggested above, for instance in the case of India and elsewhere. See False Statistics for Baha'i Membership in the USA, India, & Elsewhere (updated August 2010)
False Statistics for Baha'i Membership in the USA, India, & Elsewhere

Slandering the smaller Bahai denominations haven't made them go away after 80 years for very good reasons. The Haifans don't have the truth. Deceived and brainwashed believers, of any denomination, Eric Hoffer's "true believers," don't change a thing.

Again, as I cited here elsewhere, Denis MacEoin, an outstanding British scholar and man of integrity, demolishes Udo Schaefer's Making the Crooked Straight at Denis MacEoin Reviews Making the Crooked Straight H-Bahai, 2001

I do agree with the notion that Abdul-Baha asserted that the Bahai Cause would "survive and endure." In that regard, Baha'u'llah too emphasized symbolically that after a schism his Faith would endure, in The Tablet of the Holy Mariner, http://www.omphaloskepsis.com/ebooks/pdf/mariner.pdf

Compare the repeatedly published and emphasized 1912 Covenant with these three crucial statements by Abdul-Baha published prior to his death in the Star of the West November 23, 1920, p 243:

"In New York City, July, 1912, Abdul-Baha said to several believers: 'Any one quoting me must have authority written either with my own hand, or Tablets signed with my seal. Otherwise these statements do not belong to me. Every instruction, every teaching that I desire to spread I will write with my own hand. You must know this generally. Never accept any statement without my writing which is signed and sealed--any statement."

"In Egypt, in August, 1913, Abdul-Baha stated (Mirza Ahmad Sohrab interpreting): 'When in America I repeatedly said that no one must believe one word said by another regarding any commands, teachings or statements made by me unless they can produce the same in writing over my signature."

"That which has come forth from the Center of the Covenant you must take fast hold of. That which issues from my lips and that which is written with my pen is the Reality. With this you can irrigate the vineyard of God. With this you can make the tree of the Cause of God become verdant. Through this Name the Kingdom of God will be spread all over the world. Through this the Sun of Reality will shine. Through this the clouds of Mercy will pour down. Whosever utters a word you must ask: 'Where is the authority of the Center of the Covenant? Show it.' Without this you must not listen to him. If an angel comes down from heaven and has no authority from the Center of the Covenant, you must require his authority. Otherwise the vineyard will become withered and dry. This is the reality."

For Reform Bahais, it is clear that the Will of God is to preserve His Faith in the long run. Despite the unprobated, unauthenticated "covenant," the true Covenant of Abdul-Baha still exists and is working its positive effect in the world and among the followers of his father's teachings.

Hope this helps.
 
I am reminded of my discussions with Thomas about the evolution from the disciples of Jesus to the Catholic/Orthodox Church, and the problems of determining which texts are genuine, and what they meant, and which historic figure was really on what side of what issue. It is, in my own view, a fundamental problem with any "scripture-driven" religion: the words of some human prophet are declared infallible "words of God", but then the usage of words changes, the social context in which they were uttered disappears, and words addressed to some particular political situation, especially internal politicking within the religious group, become embarrassing later. So there have to be official "interpreters" of the infallible scriptures: and how much infallibility gets ascribed to these interpreters, and how can the faithful protect themselves against the sheer self-interest of this authority?

Ruth, I rummaged around the Internet a lot; yes, I've read the Address on the Covenant that you lay so much store on, and I read your (? if it was not you, it was somebody much like you) argument with "stinkyhenry" (3rd-generation Haifa-loyal-all-the-way Baha'i with a stack of yellowing originals of "Star of the West" from grandma's attic) on "Soul Pancake"; and Glaysher's piece on the exaggeration of "enrolled" membership; and saw the YouTube videos of the Orthodox Baha'i, all looking in their seventies through nineties and eager to talk about leadership fights from a half-century ago (no wonder they have trouble interesting younger people); and the brochure from the Tarbiyat center in New Mexico; and a bunch of open discussion forums which confirmed that there are a lot (indeed perhaps tens of thousands) of "unenrolled Baha'i" but-- it seems to me most of the unenrolled take the position "I'll interpret all these things for myself, thank you very much" and are no more interested in joining any dissident denomination than in "enrolling" with Haifa; at most, they'll accept the hospitality of the UU churches for meeting sites, since the UU's don't expect them to agree to any "interpretations" of anything.

Looking for the little dissident denominations was a mixture of amusing and sad. The BUPC ("under the Provisions of the Covenant") still have the UHJ.net "official website of the Universal House of Justice" which struck me as indeed a violation of trademark principles (I'm sorry that I accused your group of that one; it was the Jensen group, I see) since, whatever arguments they have for being the "real" UHJ it is just a fact that the Haifa UHJ is well-known and they aren't, and they should make it plain right at the top that there should be no confusion between the two; however, Robert Wright in Alaska hasn't issued anything since a 2007 statement about the death of Saddam Hussein and is apparently no longer on speaking terms with Neal Chase in Montana, whose quarterly magazine ceased publishing and website stopped being updated a couple years back-- so I do indeed think he is a "sect of one" now. The "living Guardianship" website has a poignant question from someone who really was interested in learning more-- but could only be told that there is no-one to e-mail, and he could write a letter to Shogomanian but the Guardian doesn't usually answer letters anymore; the quarterly magazine is all reprints, hasn't had any new material written in years. And "Reform Baha'i"? Besides your meeting in Rochester, I couldn't find any sign that there even exist any others. I saw the reprint of your amicus letter to the court, in which you claimed to have "[deleted] members"; you're really terrified that Haifa is going to come get you if they learn the awful secret of how many attend your meeting?
 
bob x said:
I am reminded of my discussions with Thomas about the evolution from the disciples of Jesus to the Catholic/Orthodox Church....
Click to expand...

I respect your observation about the Catholic/Orthodox Church, and I agree fully with you.

Are you rummaging "around the Internet" on Wikipedia? It's a completely controlled and distorted source of information on Baha'i, as are the majority of books published by the Wilmette Baha'i publishing company.

It's possible that the UU "Unitaran Baha'is" are a bogus group. There are people supposedly involved with them who have definitely been false identities in the past. I leave it up to you to assess them at your own risk. I have never seen any corroborating evidence that the "UU Baha'is" are actually accepted or sponsored by the Unitarian Universalists.

The "unenrolled" appear credible, usually. I don't believe, though, that they're very intellectually astute, nor consistent, indeed, in my opinion, naive, for many seem to think they're going to change the Haifan denomination, which is entirely corrupt by its wielding power for decades over its little kingdom of blind followers.

I mentioned earlier here on Interfaith that Abdul-Baha had used the term the "Universal House of Justice" for as long as a decade prior to his death in 1921, as did the early Bahais in the US and Canada. My memory had failed, then, Baha'u'llah himself had used it, too, in his Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Book of Laws, basically Bahai Shariah, from which he has "removed from the Book" all of the negative things about Islam, jihad, burning books, infidels, etc.

In my opinion, Baha'is of other denominations have every right to establish their own Universal House of Justice. While I do not personally find the claims of BUPC persuasive, they are my fellow American citizens and Bahai brothers and sisters. I have exchanged views with a few of them in the past, and all were cordial. The US Federal Courts were right in protecting their and other Bahais' rights. I invite you to consider that the fact that it was necessary for the Federal courts to do so might be worth reflecting on and speaks volumes, as the phrase has it, about the denomination that filed the lawsuit.

Being well known is not proof of anything, nor is having the most Bahai members indicative of anything whatsoever, let alone the truth. Religious history is replete with many examples, many of which apply in the current Bahai context. The argument you advance was the Haifan Baha'i argument that was wisely repudiated by the Federal Courts, *three* times.

You cite a lot of hearsay off the Internet, and speculation, but it's quite probable that much of it is Haifan disinformation. I encourage you to speak directly with members of the Baha'i denominations concerned, if you're genuinely interested and a person of goodwill.

The US Federal Courts have ruled repeatedly upholding the First Amendment against the Shiite fascists and criminals who deceive and brainwash people into believing in their false will and testament and seek to destroy other Bahai denominations and individuals, through the courts, online, and in other ways, like the Scientologists.
List of Documents in case

You've completely misjudged me. I suggest reading the 150 megabytes of documentation on my Bahai Censorship site:

The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience

After doing that, read the 400 megabytes of books and information on
the Reform Bahai Faith
Reform Bahai Faith
 
Bob,

>It's possible that the UU "Unitarian Baha'is" are a bogus group. There are people supposedly involved with them who have definitely been false identities in the past.

The above was posted by "Ruth White," speaking of falsehoods!

Ruth White was a notorious covenant-breaker spreading her attacks 80-90 years ago, so I can assure you that the poster using that name now is definitely posting under a ~false identity!~

Speaking of which,

"Dear Kettle,

"You're black!

"Love,

"Pot"
 
Bob,

After you finish that stage of your reading and research, please read my books:

"The Universal Principles of the Reform Bahai Faith"
Reform Bahai Press, 2008. 148 pages. Kindle, ePub. 2008.
Reform Bahai Press

"Letters from the American Desert." Kindle, ePub. 2008.
Reform Bahai Press

You might even start with "Letters from the American Desert." I recommend the ebook edition, ePub or Kindle.
 
Ruth: Please, Baha'u'llah has spoken of unity, of going along with the group even if it is wrong if it means unity can survive. Why do you call yourself Baha'i if you cannot even uphold this simple aspect of the message?

It is fine if you are not Baha'i, I have left the faith because there is simply a deeper truth in the Sufi circles that Baha'u'llah has risen out of. You must either uphold Baha'u'llah or leave the Baha'i faith, doing neither you are doing a great harm. It is naught but ego, perhaps God has broken the covenant Baha'u'llah has received if you feel he is a true messenger. Clinging to the Baha'i faith without upholding its values is simply wrong - it is irrelevant what a court says on the matter.

The Baha'i faith is a dictatorship, you can see it simply being around them - granted it is dictated by committee but there is little difference effectively. At first they will be friendly, then gradually they will try to push you towards their ideals. You have rebelled against this, yet you cannot do it completely. I would suggest perhaps reading some Hazrat Inayat Khan or some other Sufi and move on from the repressiveness of the Baha'i faith.

Know though that the very existence of the Reform Baha'is and all other splinters show Baha'u'llah is a fraud - you are not helping his message at all. Perhaps this is your lifes mission? I do not see much point in it though, it is a waste of time totally.
 
Lunitik,

I respect your conscience and feel for you and your experience, with love and compassion.

I've read many Sufi books, recently and through the years. With all respect, Baha'u'llah's teachings are deeper and more profound than those from a Sufi pir. His claim is that of a Manifestation of God. I believe that claim to be true. His appointment of his son Abdul-Baha as the Interpreter of his teachings gave the Master a special station and ability to bring his father's teachings into the modern world.

Although other Bahai denominations have done what human beings always have with the Divine Light, subjugated it to a political power symbol, as Arnold Toynbee and others have so rightly pointed out, as Baha'u'llah did in The Tablet of the Holy Mariner, the Master's authoritative vision of the Bahai Cause remains, renewed in the teachings of the Reform Bahai Faith.

I invite you to investigate it at

About the Reform Bahai Faith
About the Reform Bahai Faith
 
Ruth White said:
Lunitik,

I respect your conscience and feel for you and your experience, with love and compassion.

I've read many Sufi books, recently and through the years. With all respect, Baha'u'llah's teachings are deeper and more profound than those from a Sufi pir. His claim is that of a Manifestation of God. I believe that claim to be true. His appointment of his son Abdul-Baha as the Interpreter of his teachings gave the Master a special station and ability to bring his father's teachings into the modern world.

Although other Bahai denominations have done what human beings always have with the Divine Light, subjugated it to a political power symbol, as Arnold Toynbee and others have so rightly pointed out, as Baha'u'llah did in The Tablet of the Holy Mariner, the Master's authoritative vision of the Bahai Cause remains, renewed in the teachings of the Reform Bahai Faith.

I invite you to investigate it at

About the Reform Bahai Faith
About the Reform Bahai Faith
Click to expand...

EVEN IF WRONG, Baha'u'llah states that the Baha'is should maintain unity - for a mistake can be corrected but hostility is not so easily swept aside. It is your own stubbornness and egoistic nature that is insisting something has gone awry, but that Divine Light has told you to trust the majority.

The subsects are the ones creating a political environment, the majority is simply doing as they're told. You cannot claim to be Baha'i when you reject Baha'u'llahs sole teaching: Unity.

It is utter foolishness and however you attempt to justify it is just showing your own ego and political aspirations. Of course, Baha'u'llah has created his religion to be a political force, he has established the political houses in his own texts which Abdu'l Baha has expanded on. It is supposed to be that majority votes wins outright though, not that a new party comes in because they disagree about it.

You are not Baha'i if you cannot remain united with the Baha'is, this is why I have left, I refuse to conform to absurdity. You have chosen to create further absurdity instead of simply getting away from it. There are many more important texts than anything Baha'u'llah has written, I would suggest Sikh literature as a good starting point if Sufi literature isn't to your taste. I personally found Buddha to be most meaningful, but these will provide a more gradual entrance into something mystical, something real.

I have no doubt Baha'u'llah was enlightened, but there have been millions, why is this man special? You are impressed by the language of the texts, but he is saying nothing new. He has simply had time while in prison to commit more to paper, that is why few other enlightened people write though, they are too busy celebrating life while in a cell you might as well be dead.
 
You repeat the usual reasoning and arguments of the Haifan Baha'is, but add nothing new. Much of your comments reflect the Shiite structure of thinking that Shoghi Effendi dragged back into the teachings despite Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha's repudiation of such ideas.

I invite you to read Abdul-Baha's actual covenant of 1912 and ponder its implications:

Abdu'l-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant
Abdu'l-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant

An Analysis of Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant
Comments on Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top