If I may add a new observation. Recently I've noticed a trend that I didn't before (or perhaps it was there but I didn't pay attention to it). Whenever I or those that I'm with teach a seeker, they invariably do two things: 1. ask about the 'official' stance on homosexuality. and 2. become repelled when they are told the 'official' Baha'i line of non-acceptance of homosexuality (that is, the act or marriage isn't acceptable but the person isn't condemned).

As society continues to evolve and move beyond this issue (it has almost become as accepted as the racial issue) then the Baha'i Faith is presented with a rather thorny challenge. Those that are now joining without discovering this issue will face a serious test of Faith. And those that do ask and discover it, will reject the message and not join. At least that has been my personal experience with seekers.

(First of all, many societies have taboos about different forms of sexual expression, and those of us raised in any culture anywhere are imbued with all of that.)

This means that, when Bahá’u’lláh says “boys” we need scholars’ help, and we find that the connotation is pederasty. By the mutatis mutandis principle, this must mean all sexual abuse of minors, both girls and boys. I suspect we all agree so far. There are people who advocate free love with children, but I think most of us feel this is traumatizing for little people.

Now, when Shoghi Effendi says that this really extends to forbid all same-sex relations, this is where we branch off. I think most of us recognize that Shoghi Effendi was a genius who worked himself into an early grave for us, producing such brilliant writings, plans and gardens. So, we would like to find some “wiggle room” in the fact that so many of his zillions of letters were read and signed by him, but composed by someone else, a secretary / assistant (often Rúhíyyih-Khánum, to whom we also owe so much). However, for example, the letter in Lights of Guidance that uses the phrase “against Nature” is apparently written by the Guardian himself.

And it was one of the Guardian’s functions to interpret like that – but about all subjects, binding forever?

So, here we have to decide whether we agree. This creates a deep conflict for me, because I think it is hard for me to think of anything else that Shoghi Effendi interpreted that I don’t go along with (except perhaps the penchant for sexist language, which is also a phenomenon of changing social realities).

On the other hand, Shoghi Effendi clearly pointed out that scientific issues (including economics, medicine, etc.) would have to be straightened out scientifically.

And Science already sees these issues extremely differently than 80 to 100 years ago. (For example, “against Nature” sounds embarrassingly unscientific now…)

Next step: the House of Justice puts in its opinions, holding firmly to the above “party line”. This does not create such a crisis for me as Shoghi Effendi’s interpretation, because the House of Justice has demonstrated that its infallibility must itself be interpreted.

‘Abdu’l-Bahá refers to the House as the “source of all good, freed of all error” but we have seen them do what Bahá’u’lláh said they would: decide one thing, and then decide otherwise. One small – hopefully not contentious – example: there have been numerous adjustments in “the institute process” (what clusters do what, which ones do intensive growth campaigns, etc.) as it has developed. If these admittedly minor changes were 100 years apart, we would say that society changed and the House changed its rules accordingly. Since they have been months apart, I think it means that we have to understand its infallibility as (1) the Master’s hyperbole (not the only such instance of His generously lofty over-statement) and (2) by no means absolute.

(As an aside, I think the House’s infallibility can be summarized as the fact that we have to abide by whatever they decide, so for all practical purposes they are right – even when they shift gears over and over – or refuse to budge when they seem to be wrong!)

So, the House of Justice could come around, at some point in the future, to being among the last religious authorities in the world to open up and become tolerant toward the X% of the human race who have different personal preferences.

I don’t know how they will get around the Guardian’s express pronouncement, though. Speculating, when a vast majority of the world and the Bahá’í community have become freed of practically all our obsolete excuses to discriminate against others, this could result in even a House of Justice ruling that the Guardian’s pronouncements regarding scientific issues may be treated as opinion rather than binding interpretation.

For instance, the original electrical wiring at the World Center was installed according to Shoghi Effendi's instructions. However, no one would say that it is heretical (or unfaithful to the Covenant!) to upgrade the wiring!

Anyway, as more and more people come to appreciate the undeniable beauties of Bahá’u’lláh’s Revelation, I expect this to evolve into a situation in which each Bahá’í community has lots of friends, many of whom are involved with different activities, but only some of whom are “officially” Bahá’ís.

(This is now the case already, for example, if a teenager in a Bahá’í family has not felt like declaring as a Bahá’í but still comes along with the family to Feasts, or for other family members – parents, who already have “the station of a believer” – and other friends.)

I expect that, as society becomes more tolerant, even we backward Bahá’ís will learn to follow along and grow up.

And, looking further into the future, as the world becomes civilized, many things will change. For example, perhaps the promiscuity associated with both heterosexual and homosexual relations will decline. As repression vanishes, and as every family is finally a loving place, we will learn a lot about how people really are, when allowed to be.

But unless change accelerates, we early 21st-century Bahá’ís will be cheering these advances on from beyond the pale!

If I may add a new observation. Recently I've noticed a trend that I didn't before (or perhaps it was there but I didn't pay attention to it). Whenever I or those that I'm with teach a seeker, they invariably do two things: 1. ask about the 'official' stance on homosexuality. and 2. become repelled when they are told the 'official' Baha'i line of non-acceptance of homosexuality (that is, the act or marriage isn't acceptable but the person isn't condemned).

As society continues to evolve and move beyond this issue (it has almost become as accepted as the racial issue) then the Baha'i Faith is presented with a rather thorny challenge. Those that re now joining without discovering this issue will face a serious test of Faith. And those that do ask and discover it, will reject the message and not join. At least that has been my personal experience with seekers.

(First of all, many societies have taboos about different forms of sexual expression, and those of us raised in any culture anywhere are imbued with all of that.)

This means that, when Bahá’u’lláh says “boys” we need scholars’ help, and we find that the connotation is pederasty. By the mutatis mutandis principle, this must mean all sexual abuse of minors, both girls and boys. I suspect we all agree so far. There are people who advocate free love with children, but I think most of us feel this is traumatizing for little people.

Now, when Shoghi Effendi says that this really extends to forbid all same-sex relations, this is where we branch off. I think most of us recognize that Shoghi Effendi was a genius who worked himself into an early grave for us, producing such brilliant writings, plans and gardens. So, we would like to find some “wiggle room” in the fact that so many of his zillions of letters were read and signed by him, but composed by someone else, a secretary / assistant (often Rúhíyyih-Khánum, to whom we also owe so much). However, for example, the letter in Lights of Guidance that uses the phrase “against Nature” is apparently written by the Guardian himself.

And it was one of the Guardian’s functions to interpret like that – but about all subjects, binding forever?

So, here we have to decide whether we agree. This creates a deep conflict for me, because I think it is hard for me to think of anything else that Shoghi Effendi interpreted that I don’t go along with (except perhaps the penchant for sexist language, which is also a phenomenon of changing social realities).

On the other hand, Shoghi Effendi clearly pointed out that scientific issues (including economics, medicine, etc.) would have to be straightened out scientifically.

And Science already sees these issues extremely differently than 80 to 100 years ago. (For example, “against Nature” sounds embarrassingly unscientific now…)

Next step: the House of Justice puts in its opinions, holding firmly to the above “party line”. This does not create such a crisis for me as Shoghi Effendi’s interpretation, because the House of Justice has demonstrated that its infallibility must itself be interpreted.

‘Abdu’l-Bahá refers to the House as the “source of all good, freed of all error” but we have seen them do what Bahá’u’lláh said they would: decide one thing, and then decide otherwise. One small – hopefully not contentious – example: there have been numerous adjustments in “the institute process” (what clusters do what, which ones do intensive growth campaigns, etc.) as it has developed. If these admittedly minor changes were 100 years apart, we would say that society changed and the House changed its rules accordingly. Since they have been months apart, I think it means that we have to understand its infallibility as (1) the Master’s hyperbole (not the only such instance of His generously lofty over-statement) and (2) by no means absolute.

(As an aside, I think the House’s infallibility can be summarized as the fact that we have to abide by whatever they decide, so for all practical purposes they are right – even when they shift gears over and over – or refuse to budge when they seem to be wrong!)

So, the House of Justice could come around, at some point in the future, to being among the last religious authorities in the world to open up and become tolerant toward the X% of the human race who have different personal preferences.

I don’t know how they will get around the Guardian’s express pronouncement, though. Speculating, when a vast majority of the world and the Bahá’í community have become freed of practically all our obsolete excuses to discriminate against others, this could result in even a House of Justice ruling that the Guardian’s pronouncements regarding scientific issues may be treated as opinion rather than binding interpretation.

For instance, the original electrical wiring at the World Center was installed according to Shoghi Effendi's instructions. However, no one would say that it is heretical (or unfaithful to the Covenant!) to upgrade the wiring!

Anyway, as more and more people come to appreciate the undeniable beauties of Bahá’u’lláh’s Revelation, I expect this to evolve into a situation in which each Bahá’í community has lots of friends, many of whom are involved with different activities, but only some of whom are “officially” Bahá’ís.

(This is now the case already, for example, if a teenager in a Bahá’í family has not felt like declaring as a Bahá’í but still comes along with the family to Feasts, or for other family members – parents, who already have “the station of a believer” – and other friends.)

I expect that, as society becomes more tolerant, even we backward Bahá’ís will learn to follow along and grow up.

And, looking further into the future, as the world becomes civilized, many things will change. For example, perhaps the promiscuity associated with both heterosexual and homosexual relations will decline. As repression vanishes, and as every family is finally a loving place, we will learn a lot about how people really are, when allowed to be.

But unless change accelerates, we early 21st-century Bahá’ís will be cheering these advances on from beyond the pale!

My understanding is that the USNSA said DCO did the following things wrong:

1) got married to a gay partner, and
2) talked about it openly on the internet.

The correspondence from the USNSA is posted on the internet. Feel free to send me a private email if you do not yet have the URL.