All of you have mis-read the Ruhi paragraph…Each and everyone of you.

This is how I read it…

—————
Is that how you read it, or was that the way you were taught to read it by Ruhi before you were allowed to freely allow your mind to roam….;o)

True Farhan, but if people are having a rip snorting time debating a subject and their juices are flowing, would you really want to kill the spontanaeity of the moment by making them stop? I teach science, so there is a lot of material to get through, and within a set time, but if they know how to think and educate themselves, then they can do most of it themselves and I just act as a guide. With Ruhi, the time is recommended only, there are no exams, so if everyone is really getting into it, why not let it run a bit longer?

The problem is (apart from other things) that Ruhi has no depth, it is really superficial in its approach. So if you have a tutor with excellent background knowledge who also has training as a university or high school teacher and they are really competent, logical, and can stimulate discussion, that adds a lot, it raises Ruhi from a dreary rote learning indoctrination course into a enjoyable, stimulating experience for everyone.

The problem is most of the tutors don’t have much knowledge, intelligence or teaching ability at all, so all my Ruhi experiences have been dire. When we’ve had some juicy discussion, or it was just getting juicy, the tutor quashed it and we’re all going what the heck.

So while I rant mostly about Ruhi and get all angus about it, really the problem lies with the tutors and their lack of training and ability. I could become a tutor, but I can’t be arsed trudging my way through all the books. Also I hate the crap that is interdispersed between the quotes, I hate being told what to think and believe, or how to act.

If you’re adding stories and examples and people are enjoying it and having a good time, more power to you.

Grover wrote

“…but if people are having a rip snorting time debating a subject and their juices are flowing, would you really want to kill the spontaneity of the moment by making them stop? “…” so if everyone is really getting into it, why not let it run a bit longer?”

Thanks for the feed back; I agree, as a physician, I wouldn’t want to control, but then I am perhaps not a good tutor, as those participants wanting to complete the sequence so as to get on to another, might become impatient. When you have 5 or 6 participants, you have to cater for different tastes and needs, and letting people release their deep spiritual aspirations can change session into an exciting reality show, which is not the purpose of Ruhi. The purpose of Ruhi is an urgent upsurge in human resources so as to cater for the needs of humanity, and most of all, make participants capable of making others servants of humanity.

We should keep and develop other meetings and deepening sessions for more liberal expression and thought and psychodrama and group therapy, which many of us need
Grover: “The problem is (apart from other things) that Ruhi has no depth, it is really superficial in its approach.”

It has to be so as to provide the elementary basis for all; I call it the “fast food” of deepening for mass teaching. Once your appetite has been developed, you can go on to more exciting menus with Baha’i studies, deepening’s etc.
Grover: “So if you have a tutor with excellent background knowledge who also has training as a university or high school teacher and they are really competent, logical, and can stimulate discussion, that adds a lot, it raises Ruhi from a dreary rote learning indoctrination course into a enjoyable, stimulating experience for everyone.”

Of course, those kinds of tutors are now actually appearing, and people like you could be part of them. The fact that more experienced Baha’is, normally involved with their own spiritual advancement and not that of others, and looked down upon the purpose of the Institute Process of which Ruhi is merely a motor for involving inactive Baha’is, had initially brought Ruhi to inexperienced Baha’is; On one side this has proved the efficiency of Ruhi, for mobilising inactive Baha’is, and on the other side has brought into light all the “learning” mistakes.
Grover: “I hate being told what to think and believe, or how to act.”

You would no doubt make a good tutor.

Grover: “If you’re adding stories and examples and people are enjoying it and having a good time, more power to you.”
The point is that we are seeking to impart more power to the participants, and finding ways of getting them tell stories instead of remaining passive participants.
Wamest

Farhan

[quote comment=""][...] Since Baha’u’llah did specifically create a government via the institutions, we cannot deny that this is part of the Baha’i Faith,[...][/quote]

Interesting. Could you give us a quote to back this idea up?
Here’s a few to be going on with:

“O ye the loved ones and the trustees of God! Kings are the manifestations of the power, and the daysprings of the might and riches, of God. Pray ye on their behalf. He hath invested them with the rulership of the earth and hath singled out the hearts of men as His Own domain…” (Baha’u'llah, Kitab-e `Ahd)

“I have never aspired after worldly leadership. My sole purpose hath been to hand down unto men that which I was bidden to deliver by God,..” (Gleanings)

… your Lord hath committed the world and the cities thereof to the care of the kings of the earth, and made them the emblems of His own power, by virtue of the sovereignty He hath chosen to bestow upon them. He hath refused to reserve for Himself any share whatever of this world’s dominion. To this He Who is Himself the Eternal Truth will testify. The things He hath reserved for Himself are the cities of men’s hearts … (Gleanings, CXXIX, p. 304.)

“…The instruments which are essential to the immediate protection, the security and assurance of the human race have been entrusted to the hands, and lie in the grasp, of the governors of human society. This is the wish of God and His decree….” (Gleanings CII pp 206-7,

The sovereigns of the earth have been and are the manifestations of the power, the grandeur and the majesty of God. This Wronged One hath at no time dealt deceitfully with anyone. Every one is well aware of this, and beareth witness unto it. Regard for the rank of sovereigns is divinely ordained, as is clearly attested by the words of the Prophets of God and His chosen ones. He Who is the Spirit (Jesus) — may peace be upon Him — was asked: “O Spirit of God! Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not?” And He made reply: “Yea, render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things  90  that are God’s.” He forbade it not. These two sayings are, in the estimation of men of insight, one and the same, for if that which belonged to Caesar had not come from God, He would have forbidden it. (Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 89)

“O Supreme Pontiff! … Abandon thy kingdom unto the kings, … Exhort thou the kings and say: `Deal equitably with men. Beware lest ye transgress the bounds fixed in the Book.’ (Proclamation of Bahá’u'lláh, p. 85.)

“is it not your clear duty to restrain the tyranny of the oppressor, and to deal equitably with your subjects, that your high sense of justice may be fully demonstrated to all mankind? God hath committed into your hands the reins of the government of the people, that ye may rule with justice over them, safeguard the rights of the down-trodden, and punish the wrong-doers.”
(Gleanings, CXVI)

“Should any king take up arms against another, all should unitedly arise and prevent him. . . . We fain would hope that the kings and rulers of the earth, the mirrors of the gracious and almighty name of God, may attain unto this station, and shield mankind from the onslaught of tyranny. (Gleanings, CXVII)

and from his son:

…Constitutional Government, according to the irrefutable text of the Religion of God, is the cause of the glory and prosperity of the nation and the civilization and freedom of the people. (Tablets of `Abdu’l-Bahá Abbas p 492)

“… this sect have no worldly object nor any role in political matters [mudakhalī dar amūr-e siyāsī]. The fulcrum of their motion and rest and the pivot of their cast and conduct is restricted to spiritual things and confined to the doctrine of the unity of the prophets [hiqā’iq-e wahad-e anbiyyah]; it has no role to play in the affairs of the government nor any connection to the seat of sovereignty. Its principles are the proclamation of the praises of God, the investigation of signs, the education of souls, the reformation of characters, the purification of hearts, and illumination with the gleams of enlightenment. …
[the Bahai scriptures] are entirely taken up with the prohibition of sedition, and with upright conduct amongst mankind, obedience, submission, loyalty, obeying the law, the acquisition of laudable qualities, and encouragements to become endowed with praiseworthy accomplishments and characteristics.
They play absolutely no role in political questions, and do not raise opposition in matters which could cause disturbance or sedition. Under these circumstances the government cannot justly offer excuses, and possesses no pretext [for further persecuting this sect] except [a claim to the right of] interference in thought and conscience, which are the private possessions of the heart and soul. … ” (A traveler’s narrative)

“The signature of that meeting should be the Spiritual Gathering (House of Spirituality) and the wisdom therein is that hereafter the government should not infer from the term “House of Justice” that a court is signified, that it is connected with political affairs, or that at any time it will interfere with governmental affairs. Hereafter, enemies will be many. They would use this subject as a cause for disturbing the mind of the government and confusing the thoughts of the public. The intention was to make known that by the term Spiritual Gathering (House of Spirituality), that Gathering has not the least connection with material matters, and that its whole aim and consultation is confined to matters connected with spiritual affairs.” (Tablets of Abdu’l-Baha Abbas vol. 1, page 5, also printed with minor editorial changes in Baha’i World Faith 405.)

And from the Guardian:

“… The Faith which this order serves, safeguards and promotes, is, it should be noted in this connection, essentially supernatural, supranational, entirely non-political, ” (Statement to the Special UN Committee on Palestine, 1947)

“Theirs is not the purpose, while endeavoring to conduct and perfect the administrative affairs of their Faith, to violate, under any circumstances, the provisions of their country’s constitution, much less to allow the machinery of their administration to supersede the government of their respective countries.” (World Order of Baha’u'llah)

Sen wrote :

Interesting. Could you give us a quote to back this idea up?

Dear Sen,

There are many subjects that can be confusing in the Baha’i revelation if we do not remember that it is a progressively unfolding revelation.

For example, Baha’u’llah speaks of learning languages for teaching the Faith, but also of having one auxiliary language, taught together with the mother tongue, and then in time, having only one language. These apparently contradicting ideas refer to different periods in human history.

The Bab allowed defensive wars, but Baha’u’llah forbade them; He observed the rules of His time by marrying several wives, but Abdu’l-Baha forbade it, dressed oriental, went to the mosque, gave money to the poor, required burials with the feet towards Mecca, and the observance of the Moslem fast. In later times, Shoghi Effendi changed all this.

In the same way, at a certain time in the history of the Faith we are required to abstain from party politics, and then in the future, in the golden Age of the Faith, political institutions might have specific inspiration from the Faith.

We try to be smart by looking for paradoxes in a Divine Revelation that is totally coherent, but in fact we only display our own lack of foresight.

[quote comment="57749"]We try to be smart by looking for paradoxes in a Divine Revelation that is totally coherent, but in fact we only display our own lack of foresight.[/quote]

Yes, thanks for the sugary and completely unwarranted ad hominem. In case you haven’t noticed, Sen has been finding coherence in the revelation and has been pointing out the paradoxes inherent in other theological interpretations.

Now can we have a quote to back your earlier assertion up?

ka kite
Steve

Farhan wrote: He observed the rules of His time by marrying several wives, but Abdu’l-Baha forbade it
———————————–
This is false. Something I used to believe until I was corrected thanks to the creater of this forum. Abdul-Baha never forbade polygamy. He not only permitted, but took offence at the people in his time who tried to attack him by saying that he was forbidding polygame (I wish I could find that tablet again). So you are wrong on this Farhan, as you are wrong about the Bahaullah creating a government through the institutions. I just wish that these truths could be frankly discussed WITHIN the Bahai community. As long as they are not, then you will always find a community online of dissatisfied Bahais seeking the truth.

[quote comment="57766"]He not only permitted, but took offence at the people in his time who tried to attack him by saying that he was forbidding polygamy (I wish I could find that tablet again).[/quote]

Perhaps you’re thinking of a passage that Sen recently posted to the Unenrolled Baha’i list:

“Concerning bigamy, this has been promulgated, and no one must abrogate it (mansusast nasikhi nadarad). ‘Abdu’l Baha has not abrogated this law. These are false accusations and lies (spread by) the friends. What I have said is that He [is that Baha'u'llah, or Muhammad?] has made bigamy bound on a precondition. As long as someone does not attain certitude regarding the capability to practice justice and his heart is not at rest that he can practice justice, he should not be intent upon a second marriage. But if he should be sure and attain certitude that he would practice justice on all levels (and conditions) (dar jami’ i maratib), then a second marriage is lawful. Just as has been the case in the Holy Land (Ardi i Maqsud): the Baha’i friends wished to marry a second wife, accepting this precondition, and this servant (i.e., ‘Abdu’l Baha) never abstained (from giving permission), but insisted that justice should be considered, and justice actually means here self restraint (daraji i imtina’); but they said, that they will practice justice and wished to marry a second wife. Such false accusations (concerning ‘Abdu’l Baha’s prohibition of bigamy) are the slanderous whisperings (zamzamih) of those who wish to spread doubts (in people’s hearts) and to what degree they already succeed in making matters ambiguous! (Our) purpose was to state that bigamy without justice is not lawful and that justice is very difficult (to achieve).” [Amr wa Khalq 4: 174f]

Steve wrote:

Yes, thanks for the sugary and completely unwarranted ad hominem. In case you haven’t noticed, Sen has been finding coherence in the revelation and has been pointing out the paradoxes inherent in other theological interpretations.

Now can we have a quote to back your earlier assertion up?

Steve, I am not talking about Sen but about “WE” humans who try to judge Divine Revelation by our own human standards, and I have made no assertion to back up, except that to my understanding, Divine Revelation is progressive from one dispensation to another, and unfolds progressively within each dispensation itself.

*We* want clear cut “yes” and “no” teachings, where we do not need to reflect and adapt to reality in each case, wheras in fact Divine Revelation adapts itself to a different reality in each culture and country and in each day and age.

I remember a staunch and active believer who had a problem wityh alcohol. The Counsellor kindly brought his attention to the fact that he was depreciating his own efforts through this problem, and he could not understand why he who was an active believer was being “picked” upon and other wayward members not counselled;

Then I remembered the Islamic quote: what is a good deed for a remote one, can be a sin for the near one. A wonderful effort for a weak student, can be a regression for the good student.

For more details, you might want to look up my ethical presentation at the Baha’i Medical Association of Canada site in Nov 2007.

P wrote:

This is false. Something I used to believe until I was corrected thanks to the creater of this forum. Abdul-Baha never forbade polygamy.

P, you are further illustrating my point: the move from polygamy to monogamy was and had to be a progressive one: for obvious reasons it was not, and is still not possible in some parts of the world to forbid it altogether in one time. It takes time, love, patience and help to bring about observance of the laws.

There is a compilation by the UHJ on how cultural traditions in developing countries should be progressively brought to Baha’i standards.

Farhan said: P, you are further illustrating my point:

No Farhan, I’m not. You stated above and I quote you “but Abdul baha forbade (polygamy)”. So no I am NOT further illustrating your point. What I am illustrating is the misconceptions that are fed to us growing up as Bahais. Things that suddenly become truth- like Abdul-Baha forbidding polygamy. You made a mistake, and now you are backpeddling. You probably unknowingly made this mistake because you actually believed it. Don’t worry Farhan, I was fed a lot of half-truths as well. Shame I have to find the truth online instead of inside the Bahai community.

P wrote:
You stated above and I quote you “but Abdul baha forbade (polygamy)”. So no I am NOT further illustrating your point.

P,
The apparent paradox you bring up between different declarations of Abdu’l-Baha and the position of the UHJ concerning polygamy, further illustrate my point that the Baha’i Faith is a viable institution that adapts itself to the needs of each age and circumstance. In addition, Baha’is are required to respect the civil laws of the states where they reside and the UHJ can legislate any eventual exceptions that might arise in the future on that point. In the notes of Aqdas (Kitab-i-Aqdas 12:264) we read:

“While the text of the Kitab-i-Aqdas appears to permit bigamy, Baha’u'llah counsels that tranquillity and contentment derive from monogamy. In another Tablet, He underlines the importance of the individual’s acting in such a way as to “bring comfort to himself and to his partner”. Abdu’l-Baha, the authorized Interpreter of the Baha’i Writings, states that in the text of the Aqdas monogamy is in effect enjoined. He elaborates this theme in a number of Tablets, including the following: Know thou that polygamy is not permitted under the law of God, for contentment with one wife hath been clearly stipulated. Taking a second wife is made dependent upon equity and justice being upheld between the two wives, under all conditions. However, observance of justice and equity towards two wives is utterly impossible. The fact that bigamy has been made dependent upon an impossible condition is clear proof of its absolute prohibition. Therefore it is not permissible for a man to have more than one wife.”

As to half truths, we are all responsible or our own research and do not need to be fed by anyone. I can only agree with you on the lack of deepening amongst Baha’is. The Baha’i revelation is so vast, that no one can pretend to have read and understood it all.

And again Farhan, you twist and turn to fit your logic. You clearly told us that Abdul-Baha “forbade” polygamy. He did not. What he did is put out two conflicting quotes- one probably for a Western audience, and the other one for an Eastern. But he absolutely did not forbid polygamy in his lifetime- that is apparent. But this still doesn’t address the issue that the quote YOU provided is the one that I grew up learning. But I never was taught the other one- to give me the whole truth. Why?

I can only agree with you on the lack of deepening amongst Baha’is. The Baha’i revelation is so vast, that no one can pretend to have read and understood it all.
—————————-
So what you are saying is that if I open up a Ruhi book or whatever Bahai book right now, I would get a balanced view about polygamy in the Bahai Faith? I would read not only the quote that you gave me, but also the one that I put forth (that I had to find out the hard way, on the internet, from people that are tired of half-truths in the community).
I highly doubt that. I highly doubt those who make the Bahai books are so undeepened that they somehow overlook giving a balanced view of Bahai history and laws. They have an agenda to follow- Polygamy is forbidden, Abdul-Baha forbade it and that’s the story we have to tell the world- period. So much for truth!

P wrote:
You clearly told us that Abdul-Baha “forbade” polygamy. He did not. What he did is put out two conflicting quotes- one probably for a Western audience, and the other one for an Eastern.

I get your point, P: one for the West, and another for the East (and South) at a given time, in the same way that many laws of the Aqdas were first applicable in the East before becoming applicable in the West.

As I said, the Baha’i writings are vast and no one can contain it all. What I have been familiar with is the quote in the Aqdas notes; the quote you provided was new to me and I am grateful to you for providing it.

So I humbly withdraw the word “forbade” and replace it with:

“Abdu’l-Baha pointed out that since absolute justice was impossible, we should understand that Baha’u'llah was leading us to progressively understand that polygamy was impossible and should be in time abandoned, at whatever time the UHJ would deem it necessary to forbid it altogether”

The point I am attempting to convey to you is that whatever we consider as a paradox in the writings reveals the “nuances” that are relevant for different periods of humanity.

That all writings are not presented to the mass of believers at a time, but left to searchers like you and I is a wise move to help us discover these writings as the need arises, without bogging down the believers with details not necessary to them at a given time.

The pharmacist has thousands of medications in store; he does not present them all at a time to the person asking for aspirin.

P wrote:
So what you are saying is that if I open up a Ruhi book or whatever Bahai book right now, I would get a balanced view about polygamy in the Bahai Faith?

P, I am saying that if you only studied the Ruhi books, you would be getting a very unbalanced and narrow view of the Baha’i revelation.

What I am also saying, is that the Ruhi books contain the essential minimum that allows the average inactive persons to become actively engaged in serving humanity.

I am also saying that once this average person becomes actively engaged in serving humanity, he or she will be led into deepening on subjects that are most essential to those around him at a given time. The issue of how Baha’i law on polygamy has evolved and will do so in the future is not one of essential concern to a youth engage in book 3 or book 5. It might become relevant in the future for those engaged in book 15 or 18 or whatever, perhaps dealing with SED in African societies still practicing polygamy.

When I see my patients, I provide them with information that is useful to them at that time. I do not bog them down with masses of information that will drown them in despair. Those who want to know more, can Google the information for themselves; I do not shovel it down their throats. This is wisdom and not dishonesty.

I am hence implying that by throwing up masses of information, some of us are not seeking the good of humanity, but merely showing off our intellectual expertise and “disputing idly and seeking advancement on our brethren”

 Why? What is the “error of his methodology”? To my mind his “methodology” was “the individual investigation of truth” which once was a bedrock principle of the Baha’i Faith. Remember those long ago days?

He investigated something and then wrote a very interesting book about it. But apparently it is now completely forbidden by the people in Haifa who require mindless blind faith and mindless blind obedience to whatever they say as the standard of the Faith. Sen was not trying set himself up as any kind of “leader” in the Faith if you investigate the true facts. That was a completely trumped up and fabricated charge by the Politburo. The man just thought about things, did historical research about the history of certain ideas and concepts within Islam and wrote a scholarly book on one viewpoint!

It is said that Hollywood is “high school with money”! The Administrative Order of the Baha’i Faith is now apparently “high school without money”! It was all a clash of nervous teenage girls in sophomore year study hall who personally do not like Sen McGlinn very much. In fact that is what the Administrative Oder has now turned out to be. Just cliques of lifetime incumbent teenagers trying to stay popular. It has nothing whatsoever with helping humanity progress in any useful way. Absolutely nothing. Could the “Tablet of the Holy Mariner” now be in effect and severe Divine Judgement be in progress 24/7/360/1000?

Could these people in their top down Pol Pot/North Korean Spiritual Communist Party (Tm) “Year Zero” thinking have essentially ordered the complete destruction of the Baha’i Faith in every land? By following them without any personal thought or spiritual reflection, you are apparently dong your part as a good Baha’i in carrying out this destruction by people who have overreached their station as Baha’u'llah warned. Keep admonishing people like Sen McGlinn in your Peter Khan Jungend Party Uniform.

Meanwhile, the Kingdom of God on Earth will be built by people who have never even heard of Baha’u’ llah who actually get up every day and and actually DO SOMETHING REAL AND USEFUL FROM THE SPIRITUAL POWER OF THEIR OWN GOD GIVEN SOUL for the actual progress of the unfolding new World Age while the Baha’is will be smoking their pimped out Ruhi Books in a 500,000 year drug stupor decade after decade and century after century for the next 800 years of total ineptitude.

In the Baha’i Faith of today, anyone who is an educated person is the “enemy of God” because they will not turn their thinking over to nine lifetime incumbent arrogant theorists who could not hold down a real job anywhere on Earth where you have to actually do something useful in life and be held accountabloe.