You wrote:

“There’s another take on this law (PDF document):
“Bahais say that their law teaches monogamy, yet the Kitab-e Aqdas allows two wives. A glance at the law in the Bayan may help to explain — and also point to a way for Bahai family law to incorporate sperm and egg donation and surrogate motherhood as solutions to infertility. Includes some relevant scriptural texts.
Posted to Bahai_Community, 30 November 2006″

The law in the Bayan reminds me of the movie entitled “The Big Chill” where old friends mate so that the woman can get pregnant. Its a melancholy, sweet movie. But this law — which apparently is being ignore by the Bahais as is the Bayan by most Bahais these days — is easily abused, don’t you think.

The PDF you reference implies that alternative methods of fertilization — such as sperm and egg donation and surrogate motherhood — are not lawful under Baha’i law outside of the provisions of the Bayan — is this a correct reading?

As I’ve told Sen, I find it difficult to understand how a book of laws and the most holy book of a faith can be dependent on another book that is not generally available. I can understand how this might happen but from a practical viewpoint it seems crippling to the faith.

I do not reject Sen’s theory regarding the Bayan and Aqdas, I don’t have enough knowledge. But I do believe that if it is true it makes the Baha’i system of laws appear ridiculous. The system includes the way in which the laws are set out, how they are promulgated and how they are enforced.

Sen’s explanation in this matter while designed to make things clearer only serves to make them appear so convoluted that only a highly educated and knowledgeable clergyman can possibly understand and explain them in this way. I know when I repeat this it is annoying to Sen but I believe that it is this approach to explaining the writings that is partly behind Sens disenfranchisement from the main body of the Baha’i faith. The UHJ wants Baha’i belief to appear very straight forward, Sen implies that it is not. He may well be and probably is correct.

Question: are there other learned or not so learned Baha’is who have the same position re: the Bayan and the Aqdas? If so have they written about it?

If Sen is correct I wonder when the Bayan will be translated and made available to a wider group. (I know Sen can’t answer that question but it is an important one if he is correct)

Until that happens Baha’ullah’s exhortation that the Aqdas isn’t a mere book of laws will continue to read like a cop out saying ‘Don’t hold my law book up to the normal standard for law books…’

Perhaps as we are taught God doeth whatsoever he willeth, even reveal half a book of laws and then expect people to understand it. The books are open for the first time — yes but apparently that doesn’t include the Baha’i most holy book of laws!

Frank

you write:
“in your opinion, what is the difference in ‘elucidation’ and ‘interpretation’?”

Baquia,
you will find some explanations on:

http://bahai-library.com/uhj/power.elucidation.uhj.html

We read:
“In a letter dated 9 March 1965, the Universal House of Justice stresses the “profound difference” that exists between the “interpretations of the Guardian and the elucidations of the House of Justice in exercise of its function to ‘deliberate upon all problems which have caused difference, questions that are obscure, and matters that are not expressly recorded in the Book.”‘ (Wellspring of Guidance, p. 52) Among these is the outlining of such steps as are necessary to establish the World Order of Baha’u'llah on this earth. The elucidations of the Universal House of Justice stem from its legislative function, while the interpretations of the Guardian represent the true intent inherent in the Sacred Texts. The major distinction between the two functions is that legislation with its resultant outcome of elucidation is susceptible of amendment by the House of Justice itself, whereas the Guardian’s interpretation is a statement of truth which cannot be varied.”

As a professionnal, I sometimes need _immediate_ guidance, for example when a child needs transfusion and the parents refuse consent; I refer to the judge who does not “interpret” the law, but “elucidates” from the laws and jurisprudence available the line of action that I am to adopt.

To my understanding, elucidation is a practical line of action in a given case, at a given time, and interpretation is theoretical. Do you agree? My understanding is available for download under Yazdani on the BMAC site.

To my understanding, in many discussions I read individuals attempt to do work of the UHJ for which they will never obtain universal adhesion.

Well, from what I gather, Baquia, the UHJ “elucidates” which I understand as drawing practical implications from a number of concepts available at a given time, and does not interpret.

To my personnal (and unwarrented) understanding, the UHJ can decide when, if, where and which laws of Aqdas are practically applicable. They might, for example guide one national institution to forbearance and patience and another to a strict attitude depending on prevailing conditions; for example, at a certain time, they might suggest more forbearance about moral issues in the West than in Iran.

This is an important concept to me for ethical decision making. Understanding the law is one thing, how you apply it is another.

Also, in all our researches and discussions, we should realise that Baha’u'llah has identified the Universal House of Justice as the arbitrator and the law maker so as to avoid disunity and strife; the provisions of the Aqdas are to be applied for acts of worship, and legislation is left to the house of justice who decides how an when to apply the laws not applicable at this time. Hence, to my understanding, the move from polygamy to monogamy was destined to be a progressive one, according to the capacity of the community to apply those laws, and not according to God’s will. It is still not applicable in some Baha’i communities in teh world.

When Christ announced his mission by reading the words of Isaiah in the Synagog in Galilee, He announced that He had been anointed and sent to release the captives; He did not abolish slavery, but provided the teachings for it, and it took Christians several centuries to accomplish that promise.

This is a common misconception. All Baha’is are totally free to comment and to interpret the Baha’i Writings as their conscience moves them. What Baha’is are not allowed to do is to insist that their own personal view is the right view and must be held by others.