> "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.
Gee Kent, you sure read a lot into it.
> 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.
Then I submit that your argument is a false one. My purpose in bring
it up was to drive your reasoning to its ultimate conclusion and
establish that it doesn't always apply at least not as the Teachings
have been given to us by 'Abdu'l-Baha and Baha'u'llah.
OMG,
> should I read this or might it be part of a message that God says I
can't
> consider fairly?
As I said the issue of whether we consider it "fairly" was your words
not mine. I do not think I have been unfair to this person who has
been falsely identifying herself as "Tahirih."
We both know the panic associated with Covenant Breaking
> is unreasonable.
I don't know that there is any "panic" associated with Covenant breaking.
There is no spiritual poison that I might read and
> suddenly turn evil.
No one said anything about "suddenly" but the reference to Covenant
breaking being a "spiritual poison" is from the House of Justice. And
personally, I don't think Covenant breakers are the only poisonous
people out there.
>
> 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.
And in this case, I did not say anyone was a Covenant breaker. But
there are those whose influence is spiritually corrosive even if they
have not been declared Covenant breakers. As the Universal House of
Justice wrote me:
"Discussion with those who sincerely raise problematic issues, whether
they be Baha'is or not, and whether -- if the latter -- they disagree
with Baha'i teachings, can be beneficial and enlightening. However, to
continue dialogue with those who have shown a fixed antagonism to the
Faith, and have demonstrated their imperviousness to any ideas other
than their own, is usually fruitless and, for the Baha'is who take
part, can be burdensome and even spiritually corrosive."
Claudia/Starr has demonstrated a "fixed antagonism" towards the Faith
for the last seven years and towards the Universal House of Justice
for even longer.
>
> >...whichever of these two women she may be...<
>
> Or someone else.
Then we are talking about someone who has sought to deceive us twice.
What does that tell us about their character?
> And no small amount of panic either, apparently aimed at trying to keep
> people from fairly considering a rather innocuous message.
No panic at all, Kent just issuing a clear warning. I don't think her
message was innocuous, I think it was subtlety subversive.
> Neither is it unfair to point out that the person who wrote the message
> might not be who you think it is.
And if she is not she is even more of a liar? Do we trust the motives of
liars?
And the person uses quotes from
> 'Abdu'l-Baha to speak for 'Abdu'l-Baha.
She offered no quotes whatsoever to back up her contention that
Abdu'l-Baha doesn't want us to teach the Faith. Instead she offered a
visualization that He didn't want us to do this and then provided
completely irrelevant quotes.
That the person is hiding his/her
> identity or identities is a double edged sword, we might not know who it
is,
> but come to us with deception.
She didn't just hide it, she gave a false identity. If someone besides
me attempts to post as Susan Maneck they are not just 'hiding' their
identity.
>
> >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.
Yes Kent, it is not absolutely forbidden. But if you were ton an
Assembly ant to takee that phrase out of its context without including
the rest of the House of Justice's you would be guilty of something
worse that "snowballing" you would be deliberately endangering souls:
"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 "
I'm reminded of Luke 17:1-2
"He said to the disciples, It is impossible that no stumbling blocks
should come, but woe to him through whom they do come! It would be
better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were
thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little
ones." (Luke 17:1-2)
> This discussion is a very im****tant one, and I hope Baha'is reading this
> take notice.
Indeed.
warmest, Susan
|
