Why so much hatred toward Orthodox Baha'i/Covenant breakers?

Popeyesays said:
So, in short, Shoghi Effendi planned the election of the first House, making it contingent on a doubling of the number of National Spiritual Assemblies during the Ten Year Crusade. The number of NSA's almost tripled in fact.

<snip>

P.S. The Universal House of Justice was never intended to be appointed.
Click to expand...

Hi Scott, But isn't it also true that it was never intended that the office of the Guardianship would end when the UHJ was founded? I recall that Baha'u'llah's writings incidate that there were to always be the elected arm (the UHJ), the appointed arm (the Guardianship), and the Learned arm (The Hands and now the Counselors).

I am not trying to imply anything about the intactness/authority of the UHJ or Baha'i Admin Order, just showing that there was inteneded to be an appointed office as well as the elected UHJ.

cheers,
luna
 
It was indeed intended by Abdu'l Baha that the Guardianship and the Universal House of Justice would be together in authority--the Guardian as interpreter and the House of Justice as Legislator. But Abdu'l Baha could not anticipate Shoghi Effendi dying without issue or a successor.

That's why the House of Justice was established to legislate what to do about the Guardianship. The Hands had decided what to do temporarily, but at the first opportunity passed the problem to the House which DID have jurisdiction over such an event.

By the way the Guardianship may be vacant, but it's not dead.

Regards,
Scott
 
It's not so much that I doubt there was a plan for the formation of the UHJ - simply the plain cold fact that there was no direct succession of direct spiritual authority.

Again, I'm not pouring water on the issue - simply observing that it seems a common element in the development of different theological groups.
 
I said:
It's not so much that I doubt there was a plan for the formation of the UHJ - simply the plain cold fact that there was no direct succession of direct spiritual authority.

Again, I'm not pouring water on the issue - simply observing that it seems a common element in the development of different theological groups.
Click to expand...

This is largely why I feel it was such a leap of courage for the Hands to do as they did, how convenient it might have been to decide amongst themselves who might be most appropriate to be placed in the position of 'Guardian' and go back to business as normal in the administration of the faith.

To face a hard decision in such a degree of unanymity speaks for a maturity in the face of tribulation that belies it's existence for not quite a hundred years. I am not aware that the position of 'Guardian' was prohibited from the female line of descent, in which case the sister of Abdu'l Baha or Shoghi Effendi's widow might have made an obvious choice.

To tough it out and follow the Will and Testament's direction to refer such a question to the Universal House of Justice as that document directed was not the easy choice.

One might consider what could have happened if Shoghi Effendi had lived another ten years. How would the passing of a Guardian without offspring have been handled in consultation between the House and the Guardian?
The situation would have been the same.

I can't think of any faith, historically, which has faced the issues of leadership with such unanimity and deliberation.

To be frank, it is one of the things which attracted me to the faith in the first place.

Regards,
Scott
 
I noticed a number of posters here seem to be forgetting that the Hands of the Cause of God were appointed by Shoghi Effendi to defend and propagate the Faith... So when the Guardian paswsed away the Hands were already committed to see that the Faith continued and to see that the Universal House of Justice was established:

"The Hands of the Cause of God were individuals appointed by Bahá’u’lláh and charged with various duties, especially those of protecting and propagating His Faith. In Memorials of the Faithful ‘Abdu’l-Bahá referred to other outstanding believers as Hands of the Cause, and in His Will and Testament He included a provision calling upon the Guardian of the Faith to appoint Hands of the Cause at his discretion."

The Kitáb-i-Aqdas
Author: Bahá’u’lláh

Source: Bahá’í World Centre, 1992 edition Pages: 254

Protection and propagation were always the function of the Hands of the Cause and they perfoormed this role for this part in an exemplary fashion.... Seeing that the Universal House of Justice was established in 1963 was part of their function.

A little more research is needed to properly understand the process involved... which reminds me of the concept of the "Walled Garden" approach we have at CR. People are ready to attack the Faith here when it should be known that there are comparative religion sections that are available.

- Art
 
"They[Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha] have also, in unequivocal and emphatic language, appointed those twin institutions of the House of Justice and of the Guardianship as their chosen Successors, destined to apply the principles, promulgate the laws, protect the institutions, adapt loyally and intelligently the Faith to the requirements of progressive society, and consummate the incorruptible inheritance which the Founders of the Faith have bequeathed to the world."
-Shoghi Effendi, World Order of Baha'u'llah selected letters p.19-20
 
I just had one additional comment I wanted to make and that is that when Baha'is declare their belief in Baha'u'llah they enter into a Covenant... that Covenant is a signed agreement which states in part:

"I request enrollment in the Baha'i Community with the understanding that Baha'u'llah has established sacred principles, laws, and institutions which I must obey."

For this reason, someone who agrees to a covenant and later consciously and deliberately renigs or attacks the principles of our Faith and it's institutions can be deemed to be a "covenant breaker"...

It's not just someone with a different opinion on an issue or someone who disagrees and is independent minded.

Only the Universal House of Justice can determine who is breaking the covenant and authorise any action. Very few people are actually ever designated to be covenant breakers.... this is published through our official communications. I recall hearing about one case a few years ago so it is not a common thing.

Once deemed a covenant breaker there is always an avenue to return to the community when the person has truly repented and requests reinstatement.

- Art
 
"I request enrollment in the Baha'i Community with the understanding that Baha'u'llah has established sacred principles, laws, and institutions which I must obey."
Click to expand...

Curious - how long has this oath been in effect?
 
I said:
Curious - how long has this oath been in effect?
Click to expand...

It's on the declaration card, just above the signature. Back in the old days, when Abdu'l Baha was alive, if one wished to declare as a Baha`i one wrote to Abdu'l Baha and awaited a reply. Shortly after Shoghi Effendi established the administrative boundaries boundaries of the National Spiritual Assemblies, local assemblies interviewed those who wished to declare and passed along a declaration card with recommendation to the National Spiritual Assembly above them.

This protocol was begun sometime early in the 1930's. NSA's maintain membership lists today, questions of membership and credentials are handled between NSA's when necessary. There is a second sentence in the declaration that says one understands and respects the authority of Abdu'l Baha, Shoghi Effendi and the House of Justice as well. The "House of Justice" was added to that 'genealogy of authority' in 1963.

Membership cards as such are owned by the National Assembly in question and given to the individual so he can attend Feast or Conventions when travelling. If one travels between NSA's, one should obtain a letter from the NSA in one's home to take with them to the other countries as a dind of 'passport'. If one moves from one country to another on a permanent or prolonged basis one transfers membership from the old NSA to the new NSA. and becomes eligible in Baha`i elections in the new country of residence.

Regards,
Scott
 
Of course we will not talk about those who have left the faith and then been declared covenant breakers by the UHJ or those who used to post on the Talisman e-list who were removed from voting lists and declared covenant-breakers for expressing opinions over the internet. will we?

Kiwimac -- former Baha'i (no, not a covenant-breaker)
 
Greetings.

As to "discussing" those declared covenant-breakers by the House, what's to say? We hope and pray they'll mend their ways and request reinstatement.

And Kiwi, your statement is grossly misleading: those who raised the online ruckus were not declared covenant-breakers (though some irresponsible Baha'is may have wrongly implied this), and most if not all of them left the Faith at their own initiative, not through any sort of expulsion.

Nor, to refute the thread title, do Baha'is "hate" anyone! Mere smear tactics.

Just the facts.

Peace,

Bruce
 
kiwimac said:
Of course we will not talk about those who have left the faith and then been declared covenant breakers by the UHJ or those who used to post on the Talisman e-list who were removed from voting lists and declared covenant-breakers for expressing opinions over the internet. will we?

Kiwimac -- former Baha'i (no, not a covenant-breaker)
Click to expand...

Talisman was not banned, it was not a Baha`i list in any manner. Dr. Cole actually, resigned from the faith, he was never declared a covenant breaker. He may have felt coerced, he seems to say so, but the resignation was his. Talisman still exists to the best of my knowledge, I even participated for about six months. I did however, find the behavior of some of the moderators (other than Dr. Cole) to be acidic and hateful. One of those has since denied Baha`u'llah was the rightful successor to the Bab, largely re-created the Bayani's and claimed to be He Whom God Shall Make Manifest.

A few individuals were indeed dis-enrolled, but they were not declared covenant-breakers. Only the House has the authority to do either.

As to Dr. Cole, he is an admirable scholar and I read his provisional translations eagerly. As to his differences with the House, I leave him to do the explanations. He is quite capable.

Regards,
Scott
 
Yeh.. I posted on Talisman for awhile and had discussions with Cole, Ian Kluge and others.

Dr. Cole left the Faith on his own and it was more the case that he resented having his published Baha'i material under review which every Baha'i knows about. No one declared him a "Covenant Breaker".

- Art
 
kiwimac said:
I was not specifically talking about Juan Cole.
Click to expand...

I understand that, but Juan Cole was the founder of Talisman. Who were you thinking of from talisman being declared a covenant breaker?

Regards,

Scott
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top