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”

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,
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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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]