> I am saying, clearly and in several different ways that the Covenant of
> Baha'u'llah is personal with each of us,
Dear Kent,
Okay, can you show us where the Writings stress the personal character
of the Covenant as opposed to its unific functions?
and a small part of that Covenant
> is that we should obey the sanctioned institutions of the Baha'i Faith
in
> their official capacities as they themselves define those capacities.
And why is it so im****tant to you to minimize this aspect?
> I challenge the assertion that it would help to find words in other
place
s
> besides those "Pilgrim's notes" such as Paris Talks, Promulgation of
> Universal Peace, and such. I boldly assert that those works are a basis
for
> belief in the Baha'i Faith, and they accurately reflect the ideals and
id
eas
> that should be known to the world as Baha'i ideals and ideas.
Abdu'l-Baha's position is quite different from that:
"Thou has written concerning the pilgrims and pilgrims' notes. Any
narrative that is not authenticated by a Text should not be trusted.
Narratives, even if true, cause confusion. For the people of Bah=E1, the
Text, and only the Text, is authentic."
(Abdu'l- Bah=E1: from a previously untranslated Tablet)
And Shoghi Effendi states:
"Bah=E1'u'll=E1h has made it clear enough that only those things that have
been revealed in the form of Tablets have a binding power over the
friends. Hearsays may be matters of interest but can in no way claim
authority. This basic teaching of Bah=E1'u'll=E1h was to preserve the
Faith from being corrupted like Islam which attributes binding
authority to all the re****ted sayings of Muhammad.
"This being a basic principle of the Faith, we should not confuse
Tablets that were actually revealed and mere talks attributed to the
founders of the Cause. The first have absolute binding authority while
the latter can in no way claim our obedience. The highest thing this
can achieve is to influence the activities of the one who has heard
the saying in person.
"Those talks of the Master that were later reviewed by Him, corrected
or in some other form considered authentic by Himself, such as the
`Some Answered Questions', these could be considered as Tablets and
therefore be given the necessary binding power. All the other talks
such as are included in Ahmad's diary or the diary of pilgrims, do not
fall under this category and could be considered only as interesting
material to be taken for what they are worth."
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual
believer, November 18, 1931)
In regards to the talks from PUP and Paris Talks which you cite, the
Research Department writes:
Regarding the status of Abdu'l-Bah=E1's talks published in "The
Promulgation of Universal Peace" and "Paris Talks", original Persian
transcripts of some, but not all, of the talks are available. We
provide the following extract from a letter written on behalf of the
Universal House of Justice which indicates that "in the future each
talk will have to be identified and those which are unauthenticated
will have to be clearly distinguished from those which form a part of
Bah=E1'=ED Scripture":
"For many of His addresses included in "The Promulgation of Universal
Peace" and "Paris Talks", for example, no original authenticated text
has yet been found. However, the Guardian allowed such compilations to
continue to be used by the friends. In the future each talk will have
to be identified and those which are unauthenticated will have to be
clearly distinguished from those which form a part of Bah=E1'=ED
Scripture. This does not mean that the unauthenticated talks will have
to cease to be used -- merely that the degree of authenticity of every
do***ent will have to be known and understood." (23 March 1987)
Basically they are saying that while such texts may be used, they have
no authority. And as I indicated authority is what the Covenant is all
about.
>
> To challenge those works serves no purpose but to isolate, to bolster
> exclusivism, to deny the clear truth of reality as presented in Baha'i
> Writings.
Again, we are not talking about the Baha'i Writings we are talking
about oral talks that were written down by someone other than the
Central Figures. I don't see what any of this has to do with the
question of exclusivism.
>
> Each individual sentence or word might be challenged as to authenticity
o
r
> translators preferences, but taken as a whole, taken by the paragraph,
th
e
> jist of these works is the Baha'i Faith.
How can we question the translation when we don't have the original
transcript in Persian? That's the whole problem to begin with.
To rob that from me would rob my
> faith, would exclude me from the Writings which inspired me to become a
> Baha'i.
Sorry, to disappoint you Kent. Release the Sun inspired me to become a
Baha'i but that doesn't stop me from questioning the historicity of
what Bill Sears wrote.
> If the aim of the Baha'i Faith is to exclude people like me from
> 'Abdu'l-Baha's religion, well then the Baha'i Faith itself is counter to
the
> Covenant of Baha'u'llah.
I dare say if your entire faith rests upon a pilgrim's note then it is
shaky indeed.
These legalistic, exclusivist tactics of the
> interpreters of Baha'i Writings is clearly divisive.
Once again, explain to me what any of this has to do with exclusivism?
Or do you regard any claim to authority as exclusivistic?
> In that quote I point out that whoever wrote this letter on behalf of
the
> Guardian ordered the Covenant of God, second the Covenant of
Baha'u'llah,
> appointing 'Abdu'l-Baha as the center, and His teachings the teachings
of
> the Baha'i Faith only later talking about the administration of the
Baha'
i
> Faith
That's the order which is on your declaration card as well. It is also
the chronological order in which things occurred, as I noted earlier.
But if you are using that fact to minimize the Baha'i Administrative
Order then I would bring to your attention what Baha'u'llah said about
it:
"The world's equilibrium hath been upset through
the vibrating influence of this most great, this new
World Order. Mankind's ordered life hath been
revolutionized through the agency of this unique, this
wondrous System -- the like of which mortal eyes have
never witnessed."
(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 85)
Shoghi Effendi makes it quite clear what the above passage is
referring to in the World Order of Baha'u'llah:
To what else if not to the power and majesty which this Administrative
Order -- the rudiments of the future all-enfolding Bah=E1'=ED Commonwealth
-- is destined to manifest, can these utterances of Bah=E1'u'll=E1h
allude: "The world's equilibrium hath been upset through the vibrating
influence of this most great, this new World Order. Mankind's ordered
life hath been revolutionized through the agency of this unique, this
wondrous System -- the like of which mortal eyes have never
witnessed."
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 146)
>
> I point out the teachings of 'Abdu'l-Baha include commands to unify to
> better oneself, to be a light to humanity.
Yeah, and no one suggested that He didn't. But that doesn't define the
Covenant.
Susan
|
