Hi Kent,
First I am not going to tell Susan that she shouldn't read covenant
breaker materials.
She (and I) are well aware of the dangers. So don't use my name there.
The point is that there are things we are better of avoiding.
Writings of covenant
breakers are the most extreme example.
Susan warned us that this person (posting anonymously, that is not
illegal) appears
to be someone who has a history of using prevarication to undermine the
fai
th.
You objected to that warning saying everything should be looked at only on
its
superficial merits, not in its historical context. Susan pointed out
to you where that
logic leads you (rather effectively I think).
Now if you want to read any sort of trash and look for the good in it
that is your
business. Perhaps you might start with some child **** sites? Or is
that another
example of something that we are better off avoiding all contact with?
The appropriate response to Susan's warning was "Thank you Susan. I will
k
eep
that in mind when/if I read this stuff." So Susan - thanks!
Cheers,
Tom
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 4:21 AM, Kent Johnson <kent@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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
Covenan
t
> 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
Breaki
ng
> 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
t
he
> >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/h
er
> 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
belie
vers
> ><
>
> 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
yo
ur
> > 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 Bah=E1'=EDs have the unpleasant
> duty to read such literature as part of their responsibilities for
> protecting the Cause of Bah=E1'u'll=E1h. 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
> Bah=E1'u'll=E1h 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
>
>
>
>
|
