My first post about the infallibility of the House of Justice got quite a lot of comments. To all who read and contributed: Thank you! I’m indebted to you all for your thoughts and ideas. Some comments where short, some were long, some were quite funny (unintentionally) while others were surprisingly deep and insightful.
Here is a concise summary the most important points made:
For some the concept of infallibility was quite literal, while others took a more nuanced approach. Some tried to separate the ‘intellectual’ sphere with the ’spiritual’ or ‘divine’ sphere, saying that I should use more faith and less brains. A few suggested that this whole thing was simply a ruse to incite unity and that it really didn’t matter otherwise. Others seemed to be saying that one must simply believe that the House of Justice is infallible and by believing so they are.
I’d like to answer those who request me to stop asking so many damned questions and just believe. First of all, I am truly sorry that you are missing one of the most important and cherished characteristics of the Baha’i Faith: independant investigation of truth. And further, I’m saddened that you have not been able to cast aside the Shi’ite tradition of taqlid (blind imitation). Baha’u'llah forbids all Baha’is from this Muslim tradition saying that we must ’see with our own eyes’ and ‘hear with our own ears’. If we just accept what we are told and follow a presented path unquestioningly, we are not Baha’is.
The Baha’i Faith and questions go together like peanut butter and jam. Why else would there be a whole month devoted to them?
To those who asked me in their comments to not use logic or intellect, I say: Are you kidding? In the Baha’i faith science and religion are both lauded as paths to truth. One is not superior nor subservient to the other. A true Baha’i would never deny logic, critical thinking and simple deduction because it might conflict with religious dogma. That is the slippery slope of superstition. Thanks, but no thanks. In fact, the history of the Faith is replete with examples where simple logic and deduction was used as an effective teaching tool.
One of my favourite examples is that used by a simple Baha’i blacksmith to open the eyes of a learned Mulla who then went on to become a Baha’i and was titled by Abdu’l-Baha, Mirza Abul-Fadl (the Father of All Learning). The story involves rain, angels and dogs. If you don’t know it, do yourself a favour and read his wiki entry.
While discussing this interesting topic over on Talisman (the venerable Baha’i discussion forum), one contributor provided this insight:
The acquired infallibility concerns the final product, not the decision making process. IMO, confusing the final product and the process is where you and others go wrong on this issue.
As I said before, the guarantee for being error free refers to the final product and not to the process no matter what the steps of the process may be called.
This is similar to other responses that I received from fellow Baha’is. Basically, they are saying that the UHJ receives guidance from God and so their decisions are protected from error. That is why they are infallible and do not make mistakes. Not because they are omniscient but because, as Dawud put it (in the comments section of the first post) they have “God whispering in their collective ear”. Or as the above contributor on Talisman put it, the process isn’t important, the final product is.
This is a curious sort of logic for me to wrap my mind around. It could very well be that my mind is shrivelled up and simply not as ‘wrappable’ as it once was. But nevertheless, please permit me to explain why I find this explanation wanting.
If we assume that the ‘process’ isn’t important, then it does neatly side-step the requirement of omniscience that I mentioned. That is a clear advantage that it presents. However, its natural corollary presents us with an insurmountable challenge.
For if we assume that the process isn’t important but rather the final outcome, then the natural conclusion is to simplify the process as much as we can; especially considering the amount of time and resources that it can require.
One especially mischevious person might even suggest that the process be simplified to a Magic 8 ball. Whenever the House of Justice needs to come to an infallible decision, all they have to do is to jiggle the Magic 8 Ball and then to read its answer. If we believe that God’s hand currently directs the UHJ to the infallible decision, then if would follow that God’s hand would direct the Magic 8 ball to an infallible decision also.
If you are not familiar with a Magic 8 ball, another option is a dart and wall system. Presumably, answers could be taped to a wall with a blindfolded and spun UHJ member launching sharp projectiles in the general direction of the ‘answer wall’ while the other 8 duck for their lives under the table. Since God has bestowed infallibility upon the final outcome, He will guide the dart to produce the proper answer (and avoid innocent bystanders).
Now, you might laugh at these silly processes. But all I am doing is going by the the logic that the process isn’t important but rather that the outcome is.
I hope that by now it is clear that the process by which a decision is made is quite important. I would say critical in fact, to the end result. And as a natural extension, the information used in the process also has a strong correlation to the quality of the decision.
It would seem that the House of Justice itself might agree with such an assertion:
Like the Guardian, the House of Justice wants to be provided with facts when called upon to render a decision, and like him it may well change its decision when new facts emerge.
(Universal House of Justice — August 22, 1977)
That seems like good old fashioned common sense, doesn’t it?
But can the Universal House of Justice make a mistake? Well, if they are not omniscient and depend on the quality of information presented to them like the rest of us mortals, then it would naturally follow that that is a possibility.
But there is also a clue in this quote that Sen provided in the comments section:
“The Guardian… is bound to insist upon a reconsideration by them (the UHJ) of any enactment he conscientiously believes to conflict with the meaning and to depart from the spirit of Bahá’u’lláh’s revealed utterances.”
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha’u’llah, p. 150)
And as Sen pointed out:
So the UHJ can be wrong in a deeper sense than just making a mistake. It may be leading in the wrong direction, departing from “the spirit of Bahá’u’lláh’s revealed utterances.” So can anyone else — Shoghi Effendi’s words are not an invitation to stand on the soapbox of our own certainties, rather they indicate the need for humility for everyone.
I would add that what Shoghi Effendi is saying is rather alarming and it is not readily understood by most Baha’is. To me, he is saying that not only can the UHJ make a mistake, it can in fact go against the very essence of Baha’u'llah’s teachings. This is quite a dire sort of situation he describes. Of course, he is saying this in the context of the responsability of the Guardian in balancing the authority and power of the House of Justice.
And as you know, we do not have a Guardian. So that position is left unfilled and his responsabilities and duties left unfulfilled.
A beautiful distillation of the discussion on Talisman. There’s really nothing to add…
Well done!
Now I for one would like to hear, knowing full well that the Guardian established beyond a doubt the reliance of the UHJ on a sitting Guardian, how should the Baha’is regard statements made by the UHJ? Should they be obeyed, but never quite believed?
Also, I would like to see you address with similar thoroughness how the infallibility of `Abdu’l-Baha was established beyond a doubt in the authoritative writings of Baha’u'llah. Was `Abdu’l-Baha to be believed, or simply obeyed?
I am posting this after reading the comments section in PART I.
These are the words of Abdu’l-Baha - one of the Three Central Figures of
the Baha’i Faith:
“This is a goodly temple and congregation, for–praise be to God!–this
is a house of worship [Central Congregational Church in Brooklyn on 16
June 1912] wherein CONSCIENTIOUS OPINION has free sway. Every religion and every religious aspiration MAY BE FREELY VOICED and EXPRESSED here. Just as in the world of politics there is need for FREE THOUGHT, likewise in the world of religion there should be the right of UNRESTRICTED INDIVIDUAL BELIEF. Consider what a vast difference exists between MODERN DEMOCRACY and the old forms of despotism. Under an AUTOCRATIC GOVERNMENT the opinions of men are not free, and development is stifled, whereas in a democracy, because THOUGHT and SPEECH are NOT RESTRICTED, the greatest PROGRESS is witnessed. It is likewise true in the world of religion. When FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE, LIBERTY OF THOUGHT and RIGHT OF SPEECH prevail–that is to say, when every man according to his OWN IDEALIZATION may GIVE EXPRESSION TO HIS BELIEFS–DEVELOPMENT and GROWTH are inevitable. Therefore, this is a blessed church because its pulpit is open to every religion, the ideals of which may be set forth with OPENNESS and FREEDOM.”
-Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, 197.
These are the words of Douglas Martin, former member of the Universal
House of Justice of the Baha’i Faith:
“We have inherited a DANGEROUS DELUSION from Christianity that our
individual conscience is supreme. THIS IS NOT A BAHA’I BELIEF. In the
end, in the context of both our role in the community and our role in
the greater world, we must be prepared to sacrifice our personal
convictions or opinions. The belief that individual conscience is
supreme is equivalent to ‘taking partners with God’ WHICH IS ABHORRENT TO THE TEACHINGS OG THE FAITH.”
- Douglas Martin
Former Member of the Universal House of Justice
Baha’i Faith
22 Sep 2001
This guy also now apparently says this:
“The idea of an infallible and ultimate authority has now entered human
experience…”
-Bullet Point posted in PART I of a talk by Douglas Martin
Former Member of the Universal House of Justice
Baha’i Faith
27 May 2006
Yet Shoghi Effendi says this:
“Divorced from the institution of the Guardianship the World Order of
Bahá’u'lláh would be MUTILATED…without such an institution the
INTEGRITY of the Faith would be imperiled, and the STABILITY of the
entire fabric would be gravely endangered…the necessary guidance to
DEFINE THE SPHERE of the legislative action of its elected representatives would be TOTALLY WITHDRAWN.”
- Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha’u'llah, p. 148
Hummm.
And Baha’u'llah says this:
“They DESIRED to ascend to a STATION that God ordained to be ABOVE THEIR RANKS, when the luminous comet expelled them from among the inhabitants of the kingdom of his presence.”
- Tablet of the Holy Mariner Revealed by Baha’u'llah
And Abdu’l-Baha says this:
“Study the Tablet of the Holy Mariner that ye may know THE TRUTH, and
consider that the Blessed Beauty hath FULLY FORETOLD FUTURE EVENTS. LET THEM WHO PERCEIVE, TAKE WARNING!”
-Abdu’l-Baha
I think it might be a good idea for the rank and file of the Baha’i
Faith worldwide to heed Abdu’l-Baha. In fact Abdu’l-Baha might be on the
same talk show broadcasting across the planes of the Universe right now
with Lord Acton in the next world as people in some other Huge Spiral
Galaxy tune into a Reality TV Show called: “Earth In The Balance”.
“Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end…liberty is the only object which benefits all alike, and provokes no sincere opposition…The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to to govern. EVERY CLASS IS UNFIT TO GOVERN…POWER TENDS TO CORRUPT, AND ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY.”
Keep giving Douglas Martin a plane ticket and a microphone (I’ll even be glad to earmark my contributions to the fund for this) so we can get this show on the road all over the Internet for ALL TIME in the historical record.
It is called DIVINE JUDGMENT upon people’s hearts as revealed by their mouths.
- Lord Acton (1834-1902)
I believe that any organization or belief system that claims infallibility for itself or any of its founders or authority figures has done itself and its followers a disservice that will lead over time to disaster.
When you add ‘ultimate authority’ to this, the coming of that disastrous day is hastened. I hope Mr. Martin was speaking for himself and not the entire body of the UHJ.
Religion seems to have inherent notions of ultimate authority and perfection causing a percentage of followers to become fanatics. As we have seen this leads, over and over again, to catastrophe.
I think it is wise to separate religion from spirituality and leave religion behind. Unfortunately this is a very difficult path to follow. Have any readers of this done so? How and what has this done for you?
Peace,
Frank
“Independent investigation of truth” sounds great to me as a non-believer, but is it fundamental to the Baha’i Faith? Baha’u'llah’s Most Holy Book says your duty is to believe and obey. Can you honestly claim that your belief in him is based thoroughly on reason? Can you then demonstrate it for those of us who have not been so convinced, or are we blinded by our vain imaginings?
When you say “I believe”, do you really *believe*, or is it more like “I believe it’s going to rain”? Are you a believer or a spiritual speculator?
I believed in it, but I was raised in it.
When I first expressed my doubts, quite cautiously and modestly, to my Baha’i parents, I was basically told “but you’ve *found* the truth! What’s to investigate?” I find that response more consistent, albeit fundamentalist, than what I’m reading here.
Sorry I’m being so unpleasant.
Dan
It is just absurd that humans, especially elected humans, are infallible.
Period.
There really doesn’t need to be much more discussion than this, in my opinion. If you think that a bunch of elected people are infallible, or even experts in their field, you are suspending logic and reason.
It seems that the remarks on the last thread didn’t carry over well. I don’t think that anyone is claiming that the UHJ is omniscient; nor is omniscience necessary to their task; they must simply receive from God the answers they need. These answers are infallible (without flaw) even if there were a Guardian who might “conscientiously believe” that they were not in accord with his understanding of the teachings. Sen neglected to insert a paragraph just two above from that he chose:
“Referring to both the Guardian and the Universal House of Justice we read these emphatic words: “The sacred and youthful Branch, the Guardian of the Cause of God, as well as the Universal House of Justice to be universally elected and established, are both under the care and protection of the Abha Beauty, under the shelter and unerring guidance of the Exalted One (the Bab) (may my life be offered up for them both). Whatsoever they decide is of God.”"
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha’u'llah, p. 149)
I would think that when Abdu’l-Baha tells us that in his Will and Testament, we should take note. The next sentence in Abdu’l-Baha’s Will and Testament is long, but clear:
“Whoso obeyeth him not, neither obeyeth them, hath not obeyed God; whoso rebelleth against him and against them hath rebelled against God; whoso opposeth him hath opposed God; whoso contendeth with them hath contended with God;…
(Abdu’l-Baha, The Will and Testament, p. 11)
So, you see, neither personal infallibility, nor human omniscience are relevant to this discussion; as I’m sure that we agree that they do not exist. It is sufficient that the UHJ is provided with “unerring guidance”; the outcome of such guidance is “of God” and without flaw.
Warmest regards,
overmywaders
craig,
The concept of Liberty must not be confused with License. As many beliefs assert “True Liberty is found in perfect servitude to a perfect Master.”
Of course, philosophers have posited various forms of “negative liberty”, “positive liberty”, “triadic liberty”, etc.; but they seldom relate liberty to complete freedom or the supremacy of the individual conscience — for that is simple anarchy. From a religious point of view, we learn in Genesis that it is “the Knowing of Good and Evil” that causes us to make wrong decisions (”I am naked and ashamed”) and distances us from God. This ia as much true of a single member of the UHJ as anyone else.
As to the issue of the Magic 8 Ball; don’t you remember how the apostles prayed and then drew lots to find a replacement for Judas Escariot?
1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
(King James Bible, Acts)
It’s the prayer that is important there.
Warm regards,
overmywaders
Hello overmywaders,
You write:
“From a religious point of view, we learn in Genesis that it is “the Knowing of Good and Evil” that causes us to make wrong decisions (”I am naked and ashamed”) and distances us from God. This ia (sic) as much true of a single member of the UHJ as anyone else.”
I am not sure exactly what you are saying here?
I guess you are saying it is sinful and in error for members of the UHJ to have consciences too? So if Douglas Martin’s belief now becomes the world wide belief of the rank and file of the Baha’i Faith that it is “making oneself partners with God” to have a conscience then what are those nine people supposed to do for reasoning if they have to enact a law on something that “is not in the book”. In other words, they can’t just do a search on Ocean to find out what Shoghi Effendi wrote in 1938 and just phone in the decision.
In such a new case they will have to THINK and USE THEIR CONSCIENCE to reason it out as each individual understands the principles of the Faith. If they are now forbidden to use their individual conscience to make decisions on behalf of people that are also forbidden to use their conscience in life then how are they going to make a thoughtful decision? Just exactly is that future world going to function?
I guess according to your “drawing lots” guidance in your post, it’s time for the Magic 8 Ball. So it looks like that is how it is going to really be in the future. No reason. No logic. No conscience. Just use the Magic 8 Ball as they did at a major plot point in the current film “Ghost Rider”. (Should Roxanne dump Johnny Blaze after he stands her up on a date? Screenwriting scene answer: consult the Magic 8 Ball!) So it looks like Hollywood is already onto the new advanced decision making methods of the Douglas Martin Ruhiized lock step top down Baha’i Faith.
So answer me this. If in the future the Universal House of Justice says all Baha’is must now murder their parents in their beds while they are sleeping because the UHJ has received guidance from God that this is the thing to do, will the people that don’t because of the promptings of their own individual conscience get thrown out of the Faith because they have made themselves “partners with God”?
As for me, I’m not turning over my soul to any organization on this Earth. I’m going by my individual conscience. I am not going to kill my parents in their beds becase some Ruhi course told me to obey the UHJ without personal thought and personal responsibility in life.
There seems to be just two sides to this debate (here and elsewhere). The side that believes in an infallible UHJ quotes Bahai writings to prove it. The side that does not uses logic, experience and/or common sense.
It seems to me that any belief system that can support its assertions through internal references only is relying on dogma. Where is the science, logic, reason or human experience to support infallibility of any kind?
If you insist that everything written by the central figures is perfectly correct and has been accurately translated and interpreted then you are locked into a dogmatic and at times illogical box.
The writings don’t foresee everything that has happened. Certainly they do not foresee a Faith with no Guardian. The Bahai’s need to figure this out for themselves — using conscience informed by meditation and prayer. There is no quote that will adequately cover the situation of no Guardian.
And in fact there are many things like this that occur every day — people need to be – and in fact are — free to consult their reason and conscience — even though these facilties are not infallible. But then nothing in this life is (IMO).
craig,
I don’t think Ruhi is necessary to the discussion, so I’ll pass on that. I find that there is plenty to discuss in this thread without that.
As to the matter of the human conscience, it clearly can be informed of God. The UHJ often uses the phrase, “This is a matter left to each individual to decide in the light of his own conscience.”, or similar wording. (11 times in “Lights of Guidance”, not to mention the many times they imply it through not ruling on an issue.)
However, as the Guardian pointed out — “He (the Guardian) was very sorry to hear that … has left the Cause, and suggests that you point out to her, and to any other of the friends who are confused and upset over this matter, that the Manifestation of God only gives us teachings and instructions designed for our good and protection, and that if each person reserves the right to obey his own conscience, the logical conclusion is we don’t need any spiritual authority to guide and protect us, the authority of our own consciences is sufficient!”
(Shoghi Effendi, The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha’i Community, p. 443)
Clearly, the conscience is necessary, but just as clearly, that conscience should be under the guidance of God through personal union with Him. Remember:
“The Bahá’í Faith, like all other Divine Religions, is thus fundamentally mystic in character. Its chief goal is the development of the individual and society, through the acquisition of spiritual virtues and powers. It is the soul of man which has first to be fed. And this spiritual nourishment prayer can best provide.
“Laws and institutions, as viewed by Bahá’u'lláh, can become really effective only when our inner spiritual life has been perfected and transformed. Otherwise religion will degenerate into a mere organization, and becomes a dead thing.”
(Shoghi Effendi, Directives from the Guardian, p. 86)
So, the individual conscience is not being turfed out; nor did Douglas Martin state or imply this. In point of fact, we don’t have any writing from Mr. Martin on the subject, do we? I know you wish to believe the notes taken by individuals from a speech are accurate; but even the note-takers say that “They are not a transcript of the talk or of the question and answer period. … my perceptions of his talk.” Please be fair to others and don’t attribute words to them based upon what can only be regarded as hearsay, or, if you prefer, the equivalent of “Pilgrim’s notes”. If however, I am wrong (which happens with amazing frequency) and you have the notes of Douglas Martin’s address From Douglas Martin; then I stand corrected and abashed.
Yet, I don’t have a problem with the concept that individual conscience should not reign supreme under a democratic government (that was the context). For we all must sacrifice some “rights” to the common good — it’s called “The Social Contract”. I agree not to shout “Fire!” whimsically in a crowded theater — I have yielded the right to totally free speech. I understand that for the good of all we have laws about libel and slander — I have yielded the right to totally free speech. In return for these rights we receive certain protections. I think this is sufficient, you understand the Social Contract. The same applies to the Baha’i Faith but the laws are clearly from God.
Warm regards,
overmywaders
I know that many of the posters have already read it, but for anyone who hasn’t, I can’t resist advertising a little fable I wrote. “The Strange Story of Max the Infallible Donkey” seems too relevant not to recommend here.
http://snipurl.com/1c34r
Frank,
You said:
“There seems to be just two sides to this debate (here and elsewhere). The side that believes in an infallible UHJ quotes Bahai writings to prove it. The side that does not uses logic, experience and/or common sense.”
I think that if you hope we can reason together (consult) that you would use logic and not logical fallacies as above. Instead of looking at the arguments put forward, you have simply applied labels. While this is convenient, it is both a strawman and guilt by association. So, let us reason together.
I do not believe that the UHJ is infallible or omniscient. I do believe that it is not illogical to think that the results of the UHJ’s prayerful “en banc” deliberations will be from God; since such is recorded. Even if the Writings had not attested to the flawless nature of the UHJ’s decisions on matters within their purview, we can reason it thusly:
Given that:
1/ we acknowledge the existence of God — with all the Omnis possible;
2/ we trust that God wishes Man’s (singular and corporate) ultimate (though not necessarily temporal) Good;
3/ we reason that God wishes to communicate to man;
We can deduce that:
1/ God will communicate to Man;
2/ an Infinite, Unknowable Spirit will communicate through spiritual means;
3/ the man must be in the state of prayer/union/submission/openness to receive the communication;
4/ the individual will receive the knowledge necessary to him;
5/ that knowledge/direction will be true for the day/moment.
If we reason, as above, that we as individuals can commune with God; it is not unreasonable to believe others can — even if those others are jointly the Universal House of Justice.
Does a direction from God regarding an action hold for all time? Well, just because it’s snowing today, and I shovel the snow, it does not demand that I should still be shoveling snow in August (although it feels like that in March). Knowledge of our path, guidance if you will, is like manna from heaven — it must be picked fresh each day or it turns into something worthless (since you seem to have an aversion to any references to scriptures, I toss that one in carefully).
Some of the items I listed above as given may not be true for you; I don’t know. However, they seem fundamental to any discussion among Baha’is.
Warm regards,
overmywaders
You’ll have to scroll down just a little past the recommended article to find the story with this link.
Overmywaders,
You seem like a bright fellow — let *us* reason together. I like the sound of the case you make to Frank, the logical necessity with which each point follows the next. It puts me in mind of a piece of reasoning from my story available on the link above — forgive the self-advertising. Here, a farmer back in the 1930’s is answering one of his neighbors who has just objected to the notion that a being, in this case the man’s donkey, Max, can receceive guidance so as to be ‘freed from error’. I think you’ll find the comparison instructive.
“You make a good point Mrs. Marshall,” said Dan, looking as much at the crowd as at her, “and if we were talking about something else I might agree with you. But this is different from an ordinary question where there’s room for doubt on both sides. If what I’m telling you about Max here were only a matter of someone’s opinion, you could be right. People believe all sorts of things, and as you know they’re often wrong. That’s what it means to be fallible. But you’ve also got to understand that an infallible source isn’t like that: it doesn’t depend on what one person thinks. It’s not me but Max himself who says he’s infallible, and we have to remember that the things he says are more than just theories. We can trust what he tells us as we could never trust a fallible statement. If we couldn’t trust him, he wouldn’t be infallible, now would he?”
Persuasive, no? I think we all need to remember that it is the House that has decided that the House is infallible — who are we to say otherwise? That, as they say back in Saskatchewan, is the long and the short of it.
Brendan
Dear Over,
You wrote: “I think that if you hope we can reason together (consult) that you would use logic and not logical fallacies as above. Instead of looking at the arguments put forward, you have simply applied labels. While this is convenient, it is both a strawman and guilt by association. So, let us reason together.”
I think in this case it is you who are applying labels to my comments here — logical fallacies. Please let me know exactly what you are referring to. Is it simply that you label statements you disagree with? BTW I do not offer my opinion as a Strawman – I believe what I write.
In any case I agree with what you have written regarding getting help from the spiritual world. You say you don’t believe in infallibility of the UHJ. I agree.
I wonder what we are disagreeing about.
If you believe that Bahai solves all the problems of the world — I disagree. But if you say that much wisdom is contained in the Bahai writings — I agree. My issue with Bahai in its essence has to do with claims of ultimate authority and infallibility; this is why I got involved here.
But then I have this issue with any organization that makes these claims. I think that the negatives in religion stem from this unfortunate tendency — to make such claims. It saddens me because there is much in religion of value but I fear the claim of being the ultimate is a fatal flaw.
Best Wishes,
Frank
Frank,
Many decades ago, in college, we enjoyed the paradox — “I hate all those labellers and pigeonholers.” You got me.
As I mentioned on the other thread, we are largely in agreement as to the point under discussion; though, as you note, we differ as to what we perceive is making the claim for ultimate authority — you see it as the Baha’i Faith; I see it as God, one of whose temporal tools is currently the Baha’i Writings (and many other scriptures in complement) when individuals read them with the discernment of the Holy Spirit. “The letter kills but the Spirit gives life.” That the UHJ is part of God’s toolset seems clear -to me- from the Writings. If we view that institution as a tool of God instead of an overseer, it gives a different perspective.
But, no, we are not far apart.
Warmest regards,
Reed
I beg to differ with OMW regarding Genesis. What OMW presents is a Christian view, and I suppose, the dominant Baha’i view. Try asking a Jew or a Zoroastrian what it means to possess the knowledge of good and evil (conscience), and to “be like unto God”. It is a great thing, but it can involve immense shame. It means having the responsibilities of a god. Some people, such as Adam, aren’t comfortable with conscience. Eve, however, chose to heed it, regardless of the rules and the consequences. Eve may go straight to Hell for heeding her conscience, and she may take Mr. Eve (Mr. Marshall? ;-)) down with her. How many here are willing to do the same?
(Thanks Brendan for all the metaphors!)
I would also agree with St. Martin that heeding one’s conscience is equivalent to taking partners with God; but so what? This is a virtue in Zoroastrianism, wherein it is believed that Evil will prevail if good men do not become partners with God. The problem with St. Martin is that he does not believe in conscience. He wants to go back to the garden, close the eyes of his conscience, and see his nakedness no more.
It is a shame that we should find ourselves naked, but there’s no going back. Let’s make some clothing. Let’s get to work.
Brendan,
While I understand the allusions of your metaphor, there is no *reason* to it. It would be a sad day when anyone would be confounded by it; but it is very nicely expressed, thank you.
I don’t understand why you say that the UHJ is claiming their own infallibility, when as shown above, it was Abdu’l-Baha who stated succinctly that whatever the UHJ decides is of God (flawless). ““The sacred and youthful Branch, the Guardian of the Cause of God, as well as the Universal House of Justice to be universally elected and established, are both under the care and protection of the Abha Beauty, under the shelter and unerring guidance of the Exalted One (the Bab) (may my life be offered up for them both). Whatsoever they decide is of God.”
Abdu’l-Baha His Will and Testament
Dan,
Well, since you have “the responsibility of a god”; could you do something about this weather? It’s on your shoulders
Naturally, if you feel that a conscience unsupported by Omniscience and Perfect Love is useful; we cannot agree. To make a decision of import knowing only five of five trillion variables doesn’t seem safe; to yourself or others. Oh, I understand that walking with God is a strait path, and probably twists and turns; but at least one has Him for guidance. (Fortunately, your independence from Omniscience is also divorcing you from Omnipotence. You may be a god to yourself; but you are not so empowered. Close call, that.)
Mr. Douglas Martin (I don’t think that mature adults need to resort to derisive name-calling, do you?) has not in any written statements indicated that he does not believe in conscience. As I requested previously, if you have a message from Mr. Martin so stating, provide it with provenance; otherwise you are simply gossiping, n’est pas?
As for not going back to the garden, you might want to read some of Paul’s epistles, Gerhart Ter Steegen, Henry Suso, Richard Rolle, Geo. MacDonald, Novalis, Thomas Traherne, or any of dozens of other Christian mystics on the subject. Christ was accorded the title “The Second Adam”, not for naught.
Warmest regards,
overmywaders
Over,
What do I mean when I say the House is the one that has declared itself infallible? Only that Abdu’l-Baha’s words can be interpreted differently, metaphor, hyperbole — this is even assuming that ‘ma’sum’ or whatever it is even implies propositional inerrancy in the first place. What matters is that not everyone understands the Master’s words the way that the House has chosen to, not everyone thinks that the House cannot collectively make a mistake, as Douglas Martin does. This is simply the interpretation many members of the House have chosen. In other words, it is the same body to which Abdu’l-Baha’s words are applied that has also chose to interpret them in this literal, and I think dangerously simple way.
As for Martin’s statement, I would doubt the note-taking more if he hadn’t said so many similar things at other times. As I historian, I spend a lot of time deciding whether a statement is probably accurate, and there are a lot of reasons to think Martin said something very close to what the note-taker thinks he did. I would ask Martin himself since he lives here in Toronto, but I hear he is not happy with my donkey story — natural enough I suppose — so I guess that even if he wanted to explain it, he wouldn’t explain it to me.
Brendan
Dear Mx. Overmywaders,
Adulthood is overrated, yet I will agree to desist from my childish name-calling if you agree to desist from your tiresome name-dropping.
“St. Martin” is no more than a placeholder to me for an ideology that seems dominant in Bahaism. Is it, or is it not? Perhaps I am mistaken? I have never met any living, breathing man named “Mr. Douglas Martin” and I don’t care whether that man, should he exist, is a spokesman for the idea or not.
It is not as though Baha’u'llah himself did not say that there is a class of men, imbued with conscience, who have no use for the Fear of God. As for the rest, let them be managed by religion.
I don’t have a theology for what I feel. You have your ties with Omniscience and Perfect Love; I do not. We do not think alike, friend, yet we may love alike. Take heart.
Godspeed,
St. Dan
Dear Overmywaders,
I am trying to follow your logic.
As to members of the UHJ having supposed quotes from “note takers” on the Internet as not being valid for discussion, I feel that is a straw man argument. I feel it is the personal responsibility of anyone in a high position in the Faith to check the notes of what they supposedly have said that are put on the Internet for accuracy. If the notes are incorrect from a talk they should be immediately pulled from the Internet. The quote in question has been on the world wide web for five years. If it is incorrect it should be taken down.
You seem to be saying that it is fine to go with the Magic 8 Ball concept of Divine Guidance if you just pray first. That seems to be the gist of the post-Judas actions of the Disciples in Acts. I am going to do an experiment. I am getting a Magic 8 Ball and I am going to start making decisions based upon it. Maybe I will start a new religion where EVERYONE IS INFALLIBLE if they pray first and then use the Magic 8 Ball. We may all be onto something here! Like I said, Roxanne does use it in “Ghost Rider” to determine if she should break off her relationship with Johnny Blaze.
But you have not answered my question. Given Douglas Martin’s quote, if the UHJ says I should murder my parents and I refuse to do it based upon the thoughts and promptings of my individual conscience have I made my self “partners with God” and then am fully subject to being thrown out of the Faith for thought crimes?
I always thought the UHJ had infallibility in the sense of the authority of final say in ruling in their “sphere” of functioning which I thought was at the level of nations. In all these years as a Baha’i I never foresaw the current new top down micromanaged Faith where one must use the exact methods perscribed by the UHJ for teaching the Faith and all individual initiative outside of that system of any kind is forbidden. I have always had my own teaching plan that I set up and implemented myself with individual initiative. But those days are over now just like having an individual conscience guiding what I did in life.
Craig,
Perhaps I might address the last issue first, that of personal initiative. I have had to do some research on the subject and I would like to share the results with you.
We have the following from the Guardian:
Regarding the publication of Bahá’í periodicals in America, there is no doubt whatsoever that every individual Bahá’í is free to inaugurate and conduct any magazine of his own provided that nothing is published therein which in the estimation of the National Assembly tends in the least to become detrimental or injurious to the highest interests of the Cause. Within these limits, and these limits only, private initiative should in no wise be discouraged and is indeed highly praiseworthy. (Shoghi Effendi, Baha’i Administration, p. 76) [italics mine]
Regarding NSA’s the Guardian wrote:
Theirs is the duty, while retaining the sacred and exclusive right of final decision in their hands, to invite discussion, provide information, ventilate grievances, welcome advice from even the most humble and insignificant members of the Bahá’í family, expose their motives, set forth their plans, justify their actions, revise if necessary their verdict, foster the spirit of individual initiative and enterprise, and fortify the sense of interdependence and co-partnership, of understanding and mutual confidence between them on one hand and all local Assemblies and individual believers on the other. (Shoghi Effendi, Baha’i Administration, p. 143) [italics mine]
[The italics didn’t carry over, but you can imagine where they are. Clearly, the Guardian placed a great emphasis on personal initiative and expected the NSA’s to follow suit.]
Here is the UHJ’s endorsement of personal initiative:
Deliberation on this vast conception was to lead Shoghi Effendi to provide the Bahá’í world with a coherent description of the future that has since permitted three generations of believers to articulate for governments, media and the general public in every part of the world the perspective in which the Bahá’í Faith pursues its work:
The unity of the human race, as envisaged by Bahá’u'lláh, implies the establishment of a world commonwealth in which all nations, races, creeds and classes are closely and permanently united, and in which the autonomy of its state members and the personal freedom and initiative of the individuals that compose them are definitely and completely safeguarded.
(Commissioned by The Universal House of Justice, Century of Light, p. 51) (the 2cd part was quoting from the Guardian.)
“It is at this local level of Bahá’í community life, the very foundation of the administrative structure of the Faith, that we so often find lack of adequate strength and efficiency. It is at this same level that our beloved Guardian urged Auxiliary Board members to… impress upon the friends the importance of individual effort, initiative and sacrifice, and encourage them to participate in Bahá’í activities and be unified under all circumstances.”
(From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to all Continental
Board of Counsellors, November 17, 1971)
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 41)
“National Committees are ordinarily appointed by and responsible to the National Spiritual Assembly, but within the limits by wise discretion the National Spiritual Assembly may authorize a particular Committee to appoint a sub-committee or to ask individuals to assist it in carrying out its assigned functions.
“In calling these principles to the attention of the believers, however, care must be exercised not to dampen the enthusiasm or initiative of the friends.”
(From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of the North West Pacific Ocean, September 5, 1947)
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 166)
“The individual initiative of the friends should be carefully nurtured and encouraged so that they may, guided by the spiritual principles of our Faith, arise to fulfil their spiritual responsibilities.”
(From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of Uruguay, June 18, 1986)
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 556)
I think that is enough to provide a basis to state that the UHJ not only does encourage personal initiative in the Faith, but, in accord with the guidance of the Guardian, must do so and must request the NSA’s to as well.
Now, you might say that your experience with teaching plans seemed to discourage personal initiative. Well, you must then take the initiative and present a reasoned case to the LSA or NSA informing them that their approach/conduct/emphasis is contrary to the teachings. How else are they to learn if you, and other like-minded people, don’t teach them?
I speak from experience. When some plan is presented to an audience of Baha’is, it will be received/perceived in many vastly different ways. No matter how clearly a statement is articulated, each member of the audience is unique, providing many different perceptions, some of them contrary to the intent of the speaker. Just so, the propagation of the suggestions put forward by the UHJ regarding teaching have been grievously misunderstood in some quarters and it is incumbent (obligatory) that those who know better, lovingly lead those people to a sound knowledge of the guidance on such matters, from the Writings.
To show how these matters of the teaching plans have been misunderstood, NSA’s has had to assure people that adopting study circles does not mean neglecting Firesides (we know how strongly Shoghi Effendi felt about Firesides) or that starting childrens’ classes does not mean you shut down existing schools.
Set these people straight, Craig, about personal initiative. Assume that their intent is pure, but they are mistaken. Take it all the way to the UHJ if necessary. That’s MHO.
I’ll try to address your other questions at another time. IMO, I needed to take the last first.
Warmest regards,
overmywaders
There’s years and years of guidance and elucidation regarding this issue from ‘Abdu’l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi and yes the House of Justice. As always the question is one of what we mean by ‘infallibility’ and whether or not we are trying to apply a definition inherited from imperfect, human interpretations of the past or whether we recognize that with the coming of Baha’u'llah all words have been revolutionized and have new meanings which we must strive humbly to understand.
Is the House of Justice Infallible, yep. Is it so in the way some of us may assume, perhaps not.
Phillipe and All,
So the House is not infallible in the way some understand. Whose understanding wins out? Who gets kicked out because their understanding is wrong? Take a look at how Peter Khan seems to understand infallibility. Is this how we should all think?
————————————————————————–
About the projects, people say: “You must be crazy to put so much money and effort into this project in a place like Haifa with a view on an oil refinery and a busy harbour.”
Or, “Do you think that your gardens are more important than hospitals and schools? Is this how you solve the problems of the world?”
Or, “Strange leaders you have, people who want to work and live in white marble buildings.”
The Universal House of Justice has no problem with these remarks. Our deepest reason is related to the mystery of our Faith, the mystery of Carmel as the Mount of God, the mystery of Bahji, mystery of sacredness and holy ground, mystery of the Book of Isaiah, the spiritual significance of Baha’u'llah’s Tablet of Carmel. These are deep spiritual mysteries which we may not understand but they are the reason of our efforts.
The whole question of obedience to the laws of the Faith is not a rational issue but a spiritual issue. A spiritual perspective must be present which leads the believer to say, not “why must I do this?”, but acknowledge that “He doeth whatsoever He willeth”. Even if we don’t understand the reasons why, we must follow the laws. Obedience to the Covenant and the Central Body of the Cause (at this time the Universal House of Justice) is a spiritual issue, not a logical one. It is a sense of spiritual perspective which allows us to accept the concept that the decisions of the Universal House of Justice are divinely guided… and are freed from error.
—————————————————————————-
And if Peter Khan is right, then is Max the Donkey’s handler right as well? He may not be constructing as many buildings as the House, but people in *his* community are complaining about something he’s making with the money from their fund, as gazebo for his back yard.
—————————————————————————
“Now Mrs. Marshall,” Dan began, choosing his words carefully “I can understand why you and some of these other good folks might feel upset about this. It’s easy to see why spending the money from the fund this way might not seem like the best idea at first. On the face of it, it doesn’t make a lot of sense. Why spend money on building a gazebo when there’s so much else we could be doing? Why spend so much to make the gazebo out of white Italian marble? Of course this would bother you. Of course you’d have questions. You’d want to ask whether decorating my garden is more important than books for the school or hospital bills. You’d want to ask why it’s so important to do it now. Well let me tell you, Max doesn’t have a problem with questions like this: he understands how you feel. But what you’ve got to understand in turn is that whatever you say or think can’t take away from the decisions Max makes. It all comes down to what we mean by infallibility: and infallibility, if you see what I’m saying, infallibility is a matter of trust. There’s nothing I can do and nothing I can tell you that can convince you this donkey is infallible: it’s something you either believe or you don’t. This isn’t one of those questions that can be answered by arguing it out or trying to make sense of it. We’re human beings and we’re fallible, but Max isn’t fallible, and in the end we have to believe in him even when we don’t know why his choices are good ones. If we could decide about these things for ourselves, why would we even need an infallible donkey in the first place?”
Phillipe,
Do you have a reference in the Bahai writings for this statement?
“with the coming of Baha’u’llah all words have been revolutionized”? Is this a paraphrase, if so then of what?
I always thought that Bahaullah renewed all things and clarified meaning, lifted the veils from our eyes. He did not, as I understand it, change the meaning of words in a way that makes it more difficult for people to believe Him.
Peter Khan’s understanding of the word infallible is the common one — “free from error.” My personal belief is that nothing on this earth that is of man is free from all error. However there are individuals and institutions that are worth following even if they are not always perfectly correct.
The irony here is that when an institution claims infallibility it losses something of great importance — credibility.
Faith is the key to immortality according to Abdul Baha — He said that Faith is conscience knowledge, and Faith is life eternal. So knowledge is life eternal (I’m saying that). If this knowledge amounts to dogma — for example belief in infallibility — the belief system collapses under its own weight imo.
So the test is either to over come an abhorrence for dogma and accept what the UJH claims or the test is to reject what they say but somehow mange not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
As Bahaullah wrote — What, did you think you could say I believe and not be tested?
No body said it would be easy.
(BTW I’l get the references for my paraphrased quotes if you want)
Best Wishes,
Frank