Talk by former UHJ member Glendord Mitchell, re the separation of church and state

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

The above aside ... how is the Truth of the Baha'i Teaching to be preserved from error, and by whom, and on what authority?

This is a helpful link Thomas.

Universal House of Justice

I like the opening statement

"Bahá’u’lláh conferred authority upon the Universal House of Justice to exert a positive influence on the welfare of humankind, to promote education, peace and global prosperity, and to safeguard human honour and the position of religion"

"The Origins of the Universal House of Justice

The institution of the Universal House of Justice was ordained by Bahá’u’lláh in His Most Holy Book, the Kitáb-i-Aqdas. Its responsibilities were also expanded upon in a number of His other Writings. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá confirmed the authority of the Universal House of Justice in His Will and Testament and provided specific details regarding its establishment and functioning."

One will not find anything about ruling over humanity.

Regards Tony

 

[badger]

No, Shoghi Effendi did not mention a Bahai theocracy. That's a misunderstanding that arose from publishing a few words out of their context. David Hofman used the term "theocracy" in his commentary on the Will and Testament of Abdu'l-Baha, (he believed in a future Bahai theocracy), and what he said seemed to contradict what the Guardian had said about past theocracies, (because Hofman and Shoghi Effendi used the word in completely different senses), so a study class that was reading Hofman's commentary wrote to Shoghi Effendi. A secretary sort of clarified the contradiction, but it wasn't clear to readers of the time. I have made it clear, in a blog posting

What about “the Bahai theocracy”?

“This seems to reconcile the Guardian’s statement with Mr. Hofman’s,” according to the secretary. What needs to be reconciled, in their concepts of theocracy?

senmcglinn.wordpress.com

and a youtube video:

In Shoghi Effendi's thinking, theocracies are of the past and the Bahai Admin does not resemble any past theocracy; in Hofman's terms there never has been a theocracy but there will be a Bahai theocracy. But both of them have definitions of "theocracy" that do not match current usage, as well as being different to one another.

The opinions of Bahais on this topic are not important, because the consensus of the faithful is not a "source" in Bahai theology, in the way it is in Christian and Islamic theologies. See my blog at

The consensus of the faithful in Bahai theology

The apparent impossibility of achieving doctrinal consensus in the Bahai community is not a negative finding, as those religious communities that do accept the consensus of the faithful as a source…

senmcglinn.wordpress.com

Having read about world, national and local houses of justice, and reasoning behind their change of title at this time, the criminal code with sentencing, mentions of world police forces (militaries) and civil laws, I cannot have any mindset but scepticism about this.
Of course Baha'i can insist that it would only ever be an advisor to world leaders, but with enough votes that position could change so quickly.
Bahai'll be a benevolent and benign faith, probably for all time, so long as it never becomes all powerful.

 

[Sen McGlinn]

Just a quick note here – the article states:
"In Christianity, the Church Fathers translated their assurance that the believers are guided by the “Spirit of Truth” ... into a conviction that the body of believers collectively could not agree on an error : “Ecclesia generalis non potest errare” in the much later formulation of Thomas Aquinas (Summa. Th. Suppl. 25.1)"

I rather think you misunderstand here – The phrase 'Ecclesia generalis' literally translates to 'the general Church', but in every translation of the ST III Sup. Q25 A1 the wording: "Praeterea, Ecclesia generalis non potest errare..." in its English translation reads: "Further, The universal Church cannot err... " and in the parlance of the Catholic Church, the phrase 'universal Church' refers to a greater context than the lay community.

Furthermore:
Although the Christians knew from the Gospels that the disciples had disputes among themselves, which Jesus resolved, they believed that the disciples, and the believers everywhere and of every age, would never agree on an error. (Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est, in the words of Vincentius de Lérin)
Clearly this is not the case, as the history of heresy and dispute testifies. Anyone with a passing knowledge of history knows no Christian in
their right mind would believe this.

The phrase is: Magnopere curandum est ut id teneatur quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est" – "Great care must be taken to maintain that which is everywhere, which is always, which is believed by all" – by which he meant the faith of the Church as professed in the Creed and that 'which is believed by all' in union with their presbyters and bishops.

(Aside:
When the authorities of the Emperor in Constantinople kidnapped St Martin I and St Maximus the Confessor, they tried to convince the latter that the Pope, and therefore the Church, believed in a doctrine that refuted Maxiumus' teaching. The venerable old monk (then in his 80s or thereabouts) replied, "Then they are wrong, and I am the Church!")

Sadly, St Vincent himself was not infallible, as he is regarded as a semipalagian, later defined as a heresy

Nevertheless, it became a Roman Catholic doctrine that the consensus fidelium – what is stated with the agreement of all believers – cannot err.
LOL, no doubt the magisterium of the Church and myself are in accord when we say we wish that were true – But if you can show me a theology of the Church that enjoys 'the agreement of all believers' and arose from consensus, I'd be astounded, because I've never come across one.

The 'consensus fidelium' denotes a supernatural sign in the Church which transcends theologies ... dare I say it, doctrines and dogmas also.

You make my point for me. The "consensus of the faithful," in both Christianity and Islam, is in effect the imposition of hegemonic views on the faithful. It sounds like a guarantee of the agency of the ordinary believer, but works the other way since only the dominant school among the religious leaders and scholars can define who is "the faithful" and what the faithful (ought to) believe. It's a blessing that the Bahai Faith does not have this teaching.
Therefore quoting the views of Denis MacEoin or Jeff Simonds -- who do not cite sources for their claims -- will impress nobody here. The sources for Bahai teachings (you may substitute the word "dogma" or "doctrine" at your pleasure), the sources for Bahai teachings are the person of Baha'u'llah, so far as we know it today, the Bahai scriptures, Abdu'l-Baha's example of living the Bahai life and his explanations of his father's teachings, and Shoghi Effendi's interpretations as Guardian. In addition, reason is a source, not independently but interwoven with these primary sources because none can be known or understood except by reason and through the medium of transmission (ie reason & authoritative evidence is a source).

 

[Sen McGlinn]

Having read about world, national and local houses of justice, and reasoning behind their change of title at this time, the criminal code with sentencing, mentions of world police forces (militaries) and civil laws, I cannot have any mindset but scepticism about this.
Of course Baha'i can insist that it would only ever be an advisor to world leaders, but with enough votes that position could change so quickly.
Bahai'll be a benevolent and benign faith, probably for all time, so long as it never becomes all powerful.

No evidence will alter an opinion composed of suspicions rather than evidence.
Abdu'l-Baha explained why the name "house of justice" was changed:

O ye who are firm in the Covenant!

The report of the Spiritual Gathering, which is dated *** and sent by you, was received and its contents were a source of great fragrance and spirituality. I was glad to read the names of the revered members.

The signature of that meeting should be the Spiritual Gathering (House of Spirituality) and the wisdom therein is that hereafter the government should not infer from the term "House of Justice" that a court is signified, that it is connected with political affairs, or that at any time it will interfere with governmental affairs.

Hereafter, enemies will be many. They would use this subject as a cause for disturbing the mind of the government and confusing the thoughts of the public. The intention was to make known that by the term Spiritual Gathering (House of Spirituality), that Gathering has not the least connection with material matters, and that its whole aim and consultation is confined to matters connected with spiritual affairs. This was also instructed (performed) in all Persia. ***

O my God! O my God!

These are servants who have turned unto Thy Kingdom and hearkened unto Thy voice. Their hearts were dilated by Thy call, responded unto Thy summons, were attracted unto Thy beauty, acknowledged Thy proofs, believed in Thy signs, confessed Thy Oneness and arose for the service of Thy Cause and the promotion of Thy Word.

O Lord! O Lord! Make them lamps of guidance, light glistening in the supreme apex, sparkling stars in heaven, holy angels moving on earth and thriving trees bearing delicious and fragrant fruits.

O Lord! O Lord! Purify their qualities, clarify their consciousness, cleanse their hearts and illumine their faces. Verily Thou art the Powerful, the Precious, the Protecting!

O ye spiritual ones! The rules for election are those which are customary in that country. The period of election is five years.

O Lord! O Lord! Bless this Spiritual Gathering, strengthen them by Thy power for the spreading of Thy divine fragrances, cause them to follow Thy will which is effective in the realities of all things, and aid them by a confirmation such as never hath preceded to any one in former centuries.[1] For these are servants of Thy servants and Thou hast crowned them with this diadem, the most luminous (ABHA) gems of which will shine unto all the horizons.
(Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha v1, p. 6)

When Abdu'l-Baha says that the Assemblies/houses of justice will not "at any time ... interfere with governmental affairs," you or anyone else is free to say, "Ah, but they will." History shows that suspicions of what might happen sometimes turn out to be true, and sometimes not.

At a tangent, here's an interesting article (with link to research):

Cynics masquerade as wise, but they’re doing everyone a disservice | Torsten Bell

Their world-weary attitude deceives others into believing they’re better at their jobs than they are

www.theguardian.com

 

[Sen McGlinn]

The above aside ... how is the Truth of the Baha'i Teaching to be preserved from error, and by whom, and on what authority?

The true Bahai teachings are found -- progressively and continually -- by each person by turning to the sources of doctrine: the person of Baha'u'llah, so far as we "know" that, his writings, etc... (as explained previously). There is no guarantee of unity of doctrine, at any given moment, except that each person is turning to the same source(s). An analogy: if you give several painters one tube each of green and brown paint, and ask them each to paint a picture, there will be a harmony among the results, although no two paintings will be the same. Baha'u'llah says, "Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration."
(Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 213)
From that I derive two kinds of relativism: one is that the answer is built on the question, and the questions keep changing; the other is that understanding is subjective and individual. Religious truth is only true when you possess it as your own truth. Otherwise it is merely information about a religion. In the brilliant translation "every soul its particular aspiration," the original says that every head/person has its own "melody," but the word for melody is a peculiar kind of recitation that is always solo, because it has no regular beat. It jumps and skips, ex tempore, so a choir is impossible. Every heart must dance its own dance.

 

[badger]

No evidence will alter an opinion composed of suspicions rather than evidence.
Abdu'l-Baha explained why the name "house of justice" was changed:
..........

At a tangent, here's an interesting article (with link to research):

Cynics masquerade as wise, but they’re doing everyone a disservice | Torsten Bell

Their world-weary attitude deceives others into believing they’re better at their jobs than they are

www.theguardian.com

Hmmmm....... Those who have personal opinions about Baha'i which do not align with Baha'i are mostly skeptics, Sen....not cynics.

Baha'i is not a wholly spiritual movement, and its actions together with Baha'i writings have led me to this place.

And so I cannot dismiss the belief that In a Baha'i World Baha'i would certainly be a theocracy.... I couldn't read the article (had to join up?) about Noel Coward, an amazingly wonderful man who was brought down and his life shortened by Homophobic bigotry, and I am surprised that you would choose such and article.

 

[Thomas]

You make my point for me. The "consensus of the faithful," in both Christianity and Islam, is in effect the imposition of hegemonic views on the faithful.

OK.

It sounds like a guarantee of the agency of the ordinary believer, but works the other way since only the dominant school among the religious leaders and scholars can define who is "the faithful" and what the faithful (ought to) believe.

The vast majority of believers actually want that assurance.

It's a blessing that the Bahai Faith does not have this teaching.

That's to be seen. Without such defenders, the doctrine of the Church would have been determined and radically changed by Roman Emperors in the early centuries.

Therefore quoting the views of Denis MacEoin ...

"MacEoin was an active Baháʼí from 1966 to 1980, during which time he lectured and wrote in support of his faith.

In the late 1970s he wrote a manuscript on the Bábí movement. As a Baháʼí publishing material on the religion, he was required to submit his material for a Baháʼí review process, and his manuscript was rejected."
That reads like someone with authoritative oversight to me ... ?

The sources for Bahai teachings (you may substitute the word "dogma" or "doctrine" at your pleasure),

Dogma means an established teaching. Doctrine much the same. teaching, in itself, has no necessary validity.

the sources for Bahai teachings are the person of Baha'u'llah, so far as we know it today, the Bahai scriptures, Abdu'l-Baha's example of living the Bahai life and his explanations of his father's teachings, and Shoghi Effendi's interpretations as Guardian.

So you have Scripture and Tradition.

In addition, reason is a source, not independently but interwoven with these primary sources because none can be known or understood except by reason and through the medium of transmission (ie reason & authoritative evidence is a source).

Ah ... authoritative evidence.

You dress it up, but you're no different, really.

 

[Thomas]

It sounds like a guarantee of the agency of the ordinary believer ...

To you, perhaps, but thaty's a misunderstanding. My point was you have the quotes suggest something they never actually implied.

It's a blessing that the Bahai Faith does not have this teaching.

We don't have it either, it's your misreading.

It's a Straw Man.

 

[Thomas]

The true Bahai teachings are found -- progressively and continually -- by each person by turning to the sources of doctrine ...

This is no guarantee of anything ... unless you're claiming that the person is infallible.

 

[Thomas]

Probably another thread, but.

Abdu'l-Baha has made some statements about the understanding of the Holy Spirit in the Christian Faith.

I regard aspects of his statements as objectively and demonstrably wrong (I've discussed this at length elsewhere).

If I were to convert to the Baha'i Faith, where would I turn for enlightenment with regard to this dilemma?

 

[badger]

If I were to convert to the Baha'i Faith, where would I turn for enlightenment with regard to this dilemma?

If I could reply to the above question with regard to any dilemma, surely the only guidance within Baha'i has to go directly to the writings left by Bahauallah?

In my opinion the (translated) words of Bahauallah are sometimes a bit distorted by Bahá'ís telling 'what they really mean'.??

 

[Thomas]

In my opinion the (translated) words of Bahauallah are sometimes a bit distorted by Bahá'ís telling 'what they really mean'.??

And, by the same token, our own interpretations can likewise be sometimes distorted ...

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

If I were to convert to the Baha'i Faith, where would I turn for enlightenment with regard to this dilemma?

First and foremost one would need to read the Writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah, as Abdul'baha draws all his Knowledge from the twin sources of Revelation.

Anything Abdul'baha offered, has its foundation in the Revelation and has been given by authority of Baha'u'llah.

When we face such a dilemma, prayer is our great assistance, we ask of God for enlightenment.

If a Baha'i wants clarification of what Abdul'baha wrote, in relation to the source, and has not found an answer, it would also be possible to request an answer from the Universal House of Justice. This answer would most likely come from the research department.

Regards Tony

 

[Sen McGlinn]

Ah ... authoritative evidence.

You dress it up, but you're no different, really.

Reason applied to rubbish produces rubbish - GIGO. How do you know what is good evidence? - by reason. For example, the authoritative evidence of Bahai teachings is the life and works of Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi (with nuances omitted), but then we use reason to see that a translation -- or a reading -- is inconsistent with the other authoritative sources, and we use reason to deduce that some pilgrim's notes are unreliable while others are enlightening. And we use reason to read the authoritative evidence. So our individual reasoning is interwoven with the primary sources, and reason is usually an iterative process, rather than a syllogism.
Reason applied to the person of Christ as seen in the testimony of the church leads to Christian teachings, and a roadmap to the Christian life, whereas reason applied to the price of potatoes in Moscow does not. Bahai is no different, really.

 

[TheLightWithin]

I couldn't read the article (had to join up?) about Noel Coward, an amazingly wonderful man who was brought down and his life shortened by Homophobic bigotry, and I am surprised that you would choose such and article.

There didn't seem to be much to the article. The man pictured, and the man whose life you seem to be describing, is Oscar Wilde.

 

[badger]

And, by the same token, our own interpretations can likewise be sometimes distorted ...

You could have been talking about Christianity there......

 

[Thomas]

Reason applied to rubbish produces rubbish - GIGO.

Really?

How do you know what is good evidence? - by reason.

OKy ...

For example, the authoritative evidence of Bahai teachings is the life and works of Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi

Only if you accept their evidence as authoritative ...

I'm not disputing Baha'i Belief ... I just wish Baha'is would desist from misrepresenting Christian beliefs.

 

[badger]

Reason applied to rubbish produces rubbish - GIGO.

I must 'google' GIGO....
You know...... reason can sometimes sort rubbish out.....just sometimes.

.................................................. the authoritative evidence of Bahai teachings is the life and works of Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi (with nuances omitted), but then we use reason to see that a translation ......................................

That's the problem! Bahauallah was the prophet for Bahai. Where his Grandson or Great Grandson or UHJ 'explain' their opinion about Bahai, or about what Bahauallah meant then I lose interest.
I know that Abdul Baha was Bahauallah's exemplar but I would always look to the translations of Bahauallah's writings for the real face of Bahai.

I seriously believe that the real mission of Jesus was distorted beyond recognition by such as Paul and the young churches in exactly the same way, people telling us what Jesus intended or meant, or even adjusting what he said or did.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

I'm not disputing Baha'i Belief ... I just wish Baha'is would desist from misrepresenting Christian beliefs.

That issue is, this is all part of the Prophecy and warnings given for the "End of Ages" or "End of Day". We are not able to deny these passages exist. Very few Christians will want to consider that those passages could veey well be applicable to their understanding of faith.

Those that do consider these passages are applicable, are also able to consider that a Baha'i does no misrepresent Christian Scriptures, but does just offer a viable alternative understanding.

I ask of a Christian, what are your perceived understandings of our differences, how is a Baha'i not following Jesus Christ, who we submit to 100% and take up the cross to Follow him?

I can say this, as I see it is a fundamental understanding of the Baha'i Scriptures that we make no distinction between the Messengers, I offer this as quoted from the Quran.


"2:285 The Messenger believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believeth in Allah, His angels, His books, and His messengers. "We make no distinction (they say) between one and another of His messengers." And they say: "We hear, and we obey: (We seek) Thy forgiveness, our Lord, and to Thee is the end of all journeys.""

Baha'u'llah has expanded on that quote with a fundamental understanding how that can be considered.

Spoiler: Baha'u'llah Quote

These Manifestations of God have each a twofold station. One is the station of pure abstraction and essential unity. In this respect, if thou callest them all by one name, and dost ascribe to them the same attributes, thou hast not erred from the truth. Even as He hath revealed: “No distinction do We make between any of His Messengers.” For they, one and all, summon the people of the earth to acknowledge the unity of God, and herald unto them the Kawthar of an infinite grace and bounty. They are all invested with the robe of prophethood, and are honored with the mantle of glory. Thus hath Muhammad, the Point of the Qur’án, revealed: “I am all the Prophets.” Likewise, He saith: “I am the first Adam, Noah, Moses, and Jesus.” Similar statements have been made by Imám ‘Alí. Sayings such as these, which indicate the essential unity of those Exponents of Oneness, have also emanated from the Channels of God’s immortal utterance, and the Treasuries of the gems of Divine knowledge, and have been recorded in the Scriptures. These Countenances are the recipients of the Divine Command, and the Daysprings of His Revelation. This Revelation is exalted above the veils of plurality and the exigencies of number. Thus He saith: “Our Cause is but One.” Inasmuch as the Cause is one and the same, the Exponents thereof also must needs be one and the same. Likewise, the Imáms of the Muhammadan Faith, those lamps of certitude, have said: “Muhammad is our first, Muhammad is our last, Muhammad our all.”

Link to quote

By their fruits you will know them.

Regards Tony

 

[Sen McGlinn]

The link works for me - it's not about Noel Coward. Oscar Wilde is pictured as he is the author of the quote, " ‘A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing.’"
The article is about a research publication, "The Cynical Genius Illusion: Exploring and Debunking Lay Beliefs About Cynicism and Competence" by Olga Stavrova and Daniel Ehlebracht, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin