Hi Susan,
"The implications was that I was too quick to bring it up because I
didn't know if she was a Covenant breaker or not."
Not at all. The implication is that you were to quick to bring it up
because it gave you sway over how the Baha'i Community would receive the
message.
" It was because that was the logical place your argument leads to."
My arguement is that people who bring up the specter of the evil Covenant
Breaker do so to stop the just and fair consideration of a message. OMG,
should I read this or might it be part of a message that God says I can't
consider fairly? We both know the panic associated with Covenant Breaking
is unreasonable. There is no spiritual poison that I might read and
suddenly turn evil.
You and I both know that there is no way to know whether or not someone is
a
Covenant Breaker unless you tell us. It is your power over declared
Baha'is, and I think it is one you should invoke sparingly.
>...whichever of these two women she may be...<
Or someone else.
>...she is an ex-Baha'i who has explicitly repudiated Baha'u'llah...<
Or someone else. Maybe even a Covenant Breaker!
>In any case, there is no small amount of deception going on here.<
And no small amount of panic either, apparently aimed at trying to keep
people from fairly considering a rather innocuous message.
>I don't think itis unfair to point out that the person who is trying to
>speak for Abdu'l-Baha is someone with a history of antagonism towards the
>Faith<
Neither is it unfair to point out that the person who wrote the message
might not be who you think it is. And the person uses quotes from
'Abdu'l-Baha to speak for 'Abdu'l-Baha. That the person is hiding his/her
identity or identities is a double edged sword, we might not know who it
is,
but comes to us with deception.
>To read the writings of Covenant-breakers is not forbidden to the
believers
><
That is a much more im****tant statement coming from you than all of the
rest
of your innuendo. If you and I were on the same Assembly I would never
miss
a meeting for fear of having you snowball that Assembly.
This discussion is a very im****tant one, and I hope Baha'is reading this
take notice.
--Kent
"Susan Maneck" <smaneck@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:kYmdnX5aYv7cvJbVnZ2dnUVZ_viunZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I didn't say that you said she was a Covenant Breaker. I said you were
t
oo
> quick to bring it up.
Kent,
The implications was that I was too quick to bring it up because I
didn't know if she was a Covenant breaker or not. In fact, I know that
she has *not* been declared a Covenant breaker. That is not the reason
I raised the question. It was because that was the logical place your
argument leads to.
>
> We don't even know if it is a "she".
The only reason we wouldn't know that is because we can't believe
anything this person says. In both cases she used a woman's name.
That "she" denies being the Tahirih that you
> and I have conversed with in the past, and calls "herself" by the name
of
> someone who would not independently admit to having wrote it.
The post where she does so she uses the SN of another female
ex-Baha'i. As I pointed out, whichever of these two women she may be
she is an ex-Baha'i who has explicitly repudiated Baha'u'llah. Yet she
addressing us with a Baha'i Greeting and trying to tell us what
Abdu'l-Baha wants us to do.
In any case, there is no small amount of deception going on here.
> > I asked if you would apply
> > the same principle to reading Covenant breaking material.
>
> I assume you mean the principle of treating the message fairly.
That was your wording not, mine. I don't think itis unfair to point
out that the person who is trying to speak for Abdu'l-Baha is someone
with a history of antagonism towards the Faith. I gave her the
op****tunity to tell us she had changed her mind about that. Notice she
did not.
> > As a scholar I sometimes feel I need acquaint myself with
> > their arguments.
>
> And what if Tom and I were to inform you that we think it will hurt your
> soul to do so. Would you still do it?
>
> Or would you do it, but advise others against it? On what grounds?
On the grounds of the guidance of the Universal House of Justice:
To read the writings of Covenant-breakers is not forbidden to the
believers and does not constitute in itself an act of
Covenant-breaking. Indeed, some of the Bahá'ís have the unpleasant
duty to read such literature as part of their responsibilities for
protecting the Cause of Bahá'u'lláh. However, the friends are warned
in the strongest terms against reading such literature because
Covenant-breaking is a spiritual poison and the calumnies and
distortions of the truth which the Covenant-breakers give out are such
that they can undermine the faith of the believer and plant the seeds
of doubt unless he is fore-armed with an unshakable belief in
Bahá'u'lláh and His Covenant and a knowledge of the true facts.
Letter from the Universal House of Justice, dated October 29, 1974
(Compilations, NSA USA - Developing Distinctive Baha'i Communities)
> Apparently you are quite quick to cry wolf, as well.
When someone pretends to be a 'sheep' when they are clearly not one,
crying 'wolf' strikes me as the appropriate response.
warmest, Susan
|
