Oh well thank you for clarifying “nearing Covenant breaking”. So does this mean that you will somewhat shun others? I suggest you balance what you read with Abdul-Baha’s admonitions against authority (how power can corrupt) and also the very clear writings (direct from Shoghi Effendi) that the UHJ can overstep their boundaries and make mistakes, so the Guardian would have to ask them to rethink a ruling. If they are correct 100%, then why would a Guardian have to tell them that they are not? Obedience is a much, much wider tent than fundamentalists in any religion are willing to admit.

Almost all the things Fubar says are truth.

But I don’t find this to be truth:
“bahai progressive revelation = cultural imperialism”.

At all. At least, this is not what I think. I have considered that the whole progressive revelation stuff could be junk. But then I studied Islam and Hinduism…and heck it was there too. Buddhism…from what I know doesn’t go against the idea that there are “avatars” as hinduism puts it.

I am still studying therefore I don’t have a definite solution…and maybe I never will.

I’m just open to the idea of progressive revelation/avatars and most of all I do not think the main problem of the baha’i faith lies there…rather in the good old selfishness of men which is running rampant in the current baha’ì system.

The Covenant makes things complicated by giving the believer a sense of heavy guilt of even THINKING not in full accordance to the madness the UHJ can spit out. This is the gist of the programming the system perpetrated on the believers…and it is working for those who received it.

Somewhere else someone has spoken of the “apathy” of the bahai youth even though they might not agree with the institutions…there you go. Is this happening in the bahai faith only? No.

I read something by Russell the other day, where he stated that the system has made resistance to it psychologically impossible.

I know this. Everytime I go against it I get a nervous breakdown. As intense as the intensity of the resistance.

It’s metaphysical.

My brain is probably made of steel by now.

I cannot expect the average person to go against a culture the least, as the reward is a nervous breakdown and few people DON’T commit suicide after one of these.

We’re alone against zombies.

“It’s written by a group of men who claim that collectively, as an institution, they’re infallible.”

It raises the inevitable question what does infallibility, in this context, MEAN? I see it as not a black and white concept but a range – see the “Most Great Infallibility” of Baha’u'llah for another, quite different, usage. There’s also an interesting question about whether the UHJ is always infallible or just in certain circumstances (analogous to the Pope’s “ex cathedra” statements)

bahai scripture contains many scathing indictments of the corruption of “administration” of previous religions.

unfortunately the mechanisms proposed in bahai scripture to avoid such within bahaism itself are ineffective as evidenced by the massive denial about, and dysfunctional nature of, bahai administration.

Unlearning and Learning:

http://www.integralleadershipreview.com/archives-2006/2006-10/2006-10-murray.php

excerpts:

I will argue that while humanity unquestionably needs more adequate models, it is a deeper understanding of models and the modeling mind that is essential to cognitive/ethical/spiritual evolutionary development. In the post-modern (or more accurately the post-post-modern or post-metaphysical) context it is incumbent on leaders to facilitate the learning of not only specific models but of flexible and reflective ways to think about, use and evolve models.
…

In the succeeding sections I will: argue for the importance of supporting epistemic sophistication in knowledge building communities; relate this need to integral theory; describe some contemporary psychological, sociological, and philosophical theories that shed light on the issue; explore the problem of epistemic indeterminacy; and finally, offer some suggestions for what leadership supporting epistemic sophistication might look like.
…

In a sense, Bohm is laying the foundation for a curriculum of self-understanding that includes (a) knowing “how the mind works” in a general sense and (b) a reflective capacity on one’s own thinking and knowledge. Bohm’s analysis implies that a deeper awareness or understanding of mind and knowledge is an essential ingredient in resolving human problems across a wide spectrum of concerns. These include the mundane dilemmas of everyday work and relationships, academic and business efforts to collectively build and apply knowledge and the global problems of hunger, poverty, war and environmental degradation. One can argue that at the root of many of humanity’s problems is not the wrong model but the cognitive and emotional challenges to stepping outside of one’s dominating mental frameworks.
…

Adopting multiple perspectives can also have more mundane but equally important manifestations in dialog, collaborative knowledge creation and conflict resolution in contexts from interpersonal relationships to organizational knowledge-building to international diplomacy. In all of these contexts, even in the rarified realm of academic debate, opening to and working with multiple perspectives has emotional, ethical as well as cognitive challenges, as we discuss later.

Integrative thinking, adopting multi-perspectives and reflecting critically upon one’s models and assumptions all contribute to more adequate and flexible thinking, but they also challenge us by increasing our exposure to knowledge that is uncertain and indeterminate.
…

As contemporary citizens we have left the epistemological Garden of Eden in which we could believe that truth was fixed, external and knowable and we have progressively come to understand to our frustration that knowledge is fuzzy, elusive, constructed idiosyncratically by each individual, socially negotiated, determined by historical context and forever subject to revision. This post-modern understanding of “epistemic indeterminacy” (Murray 2006) and the limits of knowledge has led many to varying degrees of relativism, narcissism, cynicism or despair as the full curse of complexity, unpredictability or uncontrollability is unveiled. In the face of this complexity some have retreated into fundamentalist belief systems while hoping for safety and simplicity by avoiding multiple perspectives. Others, unprepared for the onslaught of perspectives, wander in a haze of relativism. Lacking the tools to navigate the waters of indeterminacy these options can seem like the only choices available.
…

As these questions indicate, perennial philosophical questions concerning mind, truth, meaning and knowledge are becoming more germane and salient in all scholarly dialog and even in much of contemporary culture. Fortunately, cognitive psychologists, philosophers and sociologists are discovering new models of knowledge and thought that could prove exceedingly useful in the systematic development of epistemic sophistication. We will explore some of these theories next (for a more complete treatment, see Murray 2006). But keep in mind that the epistemic sophistication that is needed is not about abstract philosophical or scientific theories. It is made up of basic intuitions about knowledge and mind that allow one to reflect upon the limits of and assumptions behind one’s beliefs, sense the emotional and social constituents of thought, open to the perspectives of others and deal creatively with uncertainty, ambiguity and paradox.
…

Jurgen Habermas claims that for dialog to move us in the direction of more adequate (if still approximate) truths it must have certain properties that are fundamentally ethical (Habermas 1993). These properties include: that sufficient mutual understanding regarding key concepts and assumptions is established; that all important or relevant points are heard; that dissenting opinion is not suppressed; that speech is honest and without hidden agenda; that the power dynamics of the situation are reflected upon; and that participants actively engage in opening up to the sometimes unsettling world views of others. Problems in any of these areas can result in systematic bias or distortion in outcomes of knowledge-building. Thus, moral constructs such as freedom, equality, empathy, sincerity, inclusivity, reciprocity, integrity and mutual regard are exquisitely entangled with the knowledge-building processes of discovering ever more adequate truths. Along similar lines Kegan (1982) shows how one’s meaning-making, one’s concept of self and one’s interpretation of morality are intimately (and
developmentally) linked.
…

People harbor various types of resistances to opening to other perspectives. Contemporary developments in transpersonal psychology and organizational theory can help individuals and groups reflect upon and integrate debilitating “shadow”
patterns and other systemic unconscious or tacit forces (for examples of specific approaches (Kegan & Lahey 2001; Mindell 1995, 2002).

… morality is a safety device compensating for a vulnerability built into the sociocultural form of life [in
which people are] individuated only through socialization…[This] profound vulnerability calls for some guarantee of mutual consideration. This considerateness has a twofold objective of defending the integrity of the individual and of preserving the vital fabric of ties of mutual recognition through which individuals reciprocally stabilize their fragile identities…To these two complimentary aspects correspond the principles of justice and solidarity respectively [that is, respect for the dignity of each individual and protection of the web of social relationships]. (Habermas 1999, p. 199).
…

Truth is validated through what George Lakoff calls a “metaphorical pluralism” of criteria, including correspondence with objective reality, coherence with other things that are believed, the consensus of experts or group members practical utility and the authority, legitimacy or reliability of antecedent information sources (Lakoff & Johnson 1999; and see Edwards & Volckmann 2006 on evaluation criteria for good theories and models.) It has also been shown that the process of arriving at more adequate truths has procedural, communal, dialectic and perspectival elements operating simultaneously (Murray 2006).

Philosopher Jürgen Habermas (1999) elegantly describes the intimate relationships between how we validate truth, how we establish meaning and the ethical/moral considerations of how we treat each other.
…

People want to know what is true (what is objectively the case), what is ethically, morally or normatively right (for me or us), and what has the most practical value or probability of meeting needs and goals. People also search for understanding, which in this context means that we need cognitive coherence and deep connections among our separate beliefs. Models and frameworks help us find what is true, right, useful and what makes sense, but they do so in different ways for each flavor of meaning-making.
…

Consider the following statements, which exemplify knowledge, skills and attitudes associated with low epistemic sophistication in most contexts:

“There is only one correct answer. The truth is the truth.”
“I only believe what I see. Reality is what we can see with our own eyes.”
“That is true because [some authority] says it is true. Case closed.”
“It is all a matter of opinion and nobody’s is any better than anyone else’s. There is no use trying to find the best answer.”
“I have no feelings about this matter; I have no biases in the matter; my thinking is completely logical.”
“I am not really responsible for my values, my beliefs or my reactions.”

The example statements listed above are not only observed in people at moderate-to-low (or “conventional” or
formal-operational) developmental levels, we all take (regress to) these perspectives from time to time and more so under certain contexts, such as when feeling defensive, under pressure or otherwise emotionally charged. If one accepts the hypothesis above, then it is also true that for “average adults” who, on the whole, exhibit low epistemic sophistication we can find simple and non-threatening scenarios for which they would reflect beliefs such as the following, which exemplified high epistemic sophistication:

“There are many answers to such questions, it’s not a black and white thing.”
“A bunch of people can look at something and see really different things.”
“You can’t rely on one source of expertise in that situation, it’s more complex than that.”
“My anger yesterday led me to think that about you, but I don’t really believe it.”
“The meaning of that term varies from one place to another; there is no exact definition of it.”
“Those people can’t just take on the values and beliefs handed to them; they have to think for themselves.”
“There are different ways to interpret that event and I am free to choose my perspective.”

It is not that everyone has the ability or desire to think at abstract philosophical levels about “the nature of knowledge”
or “how the mind works” but that epistemically sophisticated insights are available to most people in concrete practical contexts, assuming (and this is a large assumption) they have the emotional and attentional resources and perhaps with a little guidance.
…

The use of online collaboration tools such as discussion forums, electronic voting and surveys and various tools for “content management” and “decision support” is increasing. These tools can be modified to support epistemic sophistication.
For example, software tools can support having various types of examples to anchor abstract concepts and models. They can make it easy to have ideas link out to “alternative perspectives,” “pros and cons,” “limitations and assumptions” or even “constituent differentiations and generalizations.” Discussion forms can include buttons to mark postings as a “fact,”
“opinion,” “value,” “hypothesis,” “question,” etc. to support this simple but important reflective step. Online deliberation or conflict resolution processes can organize communication to go through certain steps, such as identifying evaluation criteria or shared values at the start. Secure and facilitated discussion areas can be set up to support trust and the levels of vulnerability sometimes necessary to deal with thorny disagreements.

Such technology does not guarantee productive knowledge building, self-awareness, or ethical behavior. It merely supports and encourages it by building certain values or principles into the communication medium. Adequate leadership, facilitation, instruction and participant buy-in to the underlying principles are critical prerequisites to any group adopting such tools (Murray 2005; Murray & Benander 2005) .
…

from the “inside” perspective, the sociological purpose of the “infallibility” construct is simple:

it justifies backwardness, authoritarianism and self-serving corrupt agendas.

specifically, it allows a religious elite to actually completely invert the meaning of those (and many other) terms.

I agree with you that the Supreme Body is INDEED TOTALLY INFALLIBLE and it is the SUPREME DUTY of EVERY steadfast and loyal Baha’i to carry out their EVERY command without out even a moments individual thought or individual reflection in TOTAL LOCK-STEP OBEDIENCE. PERIOD.

If they tell you to MURDER your children in their beds then YOU MUST DO IT AS A ROBOTIC AUTOMATON WITHOUT PERSONAL CONSCIENCE! You are a rank and file Baha’i and they are INFALLIBLE IN ALL THINGS! You are NOT to question their commands in the slightest. THEY ARE GOD!

So by COMMANDING that the Ruhi System and it’s detailed PAIN-BY-NUMBERS techniques is the LAW OF GOD in THIS PARSEC of this SECOND PHASE of the FORTH TRANSCENDENCE of the THIRD FORMATIVE NANOSECOND and that the Ruhi System IS the EXACT TOP DOWN MICRO MANAGED way that every Baha’i is to Teach the Faith across the ENTIRE PLANET Earth FOREVER and EVER whether fellow human beings respond or not without any leeway of any kind for individual adjustment they have essentially decreed that THE BAHA’I FAITH MUST FAIL IN EVERY LAND and be TOTALLY DESTROYED from the FACE OF THE EARTH. This will be the result of the the Great Gift of their incredible “INFALLIBLE DIVINE GUIDANCE” and it is the DUTY of every loyal and steadfast Baha’i to carry this TOTAL DESTRUCTION out to the best of their ability to the 7th Generation!

We have been INFALLIBLY COMMANDED TO FAIL and EVERY BAHA’I *MUST* CARRY IT OUT!

So be it!

Thanks for doing your part by making your post here and showing what a fine Baha’i you are by your stirring manners! Well done!!!

Ya Baha’u'Abha!

And you, a guest on this discussion forum, being discourteous. What’s with that?

When in doubt, shout!

You might be nearly alone in your appreciation of the Ridvan letter dear friend for you have stumbled upon one of the most self congratulatory Baha’i bashing group on the internet. The Ridvan letter is purely mature and astonishing in its eloquence and brevity. You would do better to avoid this tomb of laughing hyenas.
“Yea, to the beetle a sweet fragrance seemeth foul, and to the man sick of a rheum a pleasant perfume is as naught.” ~ The Seven Valleys of Baha’u'llah

http://www.kdkfactory.com/simple/A.simple.companion.ebook.pdf

When viewing google search results for “Ridvan 2010″, I noticed the link to the above 5-Year-Plan study in some blog comments.

The study guide is not particularly simple, but may be more simple than the original BWC material.

While the material is obviously meant for “internal consumption”, it is amazing that so little consideration is given to the possibility of non-bahais attempting to understand bahai “code” words, such as “teaching”. (Eventually, a confused “external” reader, if persistent, will realize that bahai “teaching” is really “conversion”, not education per se.)

The disconnect from authentic, honest spirituality (and/or basic common sense) is further illustrated by the proposal that the increased use of the word “accompany” is an indicator of spiritual maturity in the haifan bahai community.

Much of the document is simply an elaboration on the usual theme: individuals are meant to conform to bahai bureacuracy.

What the document does not do is to actually examine, in an objective manner, the performance of the 5-Year methodology, or the likelihood that its various major components are legitimate.

To me, as an ex-bahai, the sterility of the material is obvious. As is its self-referential and dishonest “logic”.

All of the aspects of human “meaning making” (my emphasis) that are mentioned in the plan are ultimately bent to one purpose: conformity to the central organization and its expansion.

In other words, cultural imperialism.

What is stunning is the complete absence of any honest self-examination of the long history of mistakes and violations of social justice in side the bahai community due to abuse of authority. It is as if an alternative reality is being constructed based on a specific absence of history.

Another assumption stated in the R2010 letter that seems incorrect is that it was the “unsystematic” manner of deepening and “community building” in previous generations that was the reason for a lack of “growth” (successful conversion and retention).

(Note that there have been contradictory statements over the years. Early on, very direct criticism of how LSAs/NSAs has historically functioned was made by those proposing a “new paradigm”. Once the uncooperative “old guard” was removed, such criticism -by “higher levels”- of historic failures of local/national bahai administration vanished as far as I can tell.)

In reality, the main reasons that the religion failed to grow mostly lie elsewhere, in various aspects of bahai culture that are dysfunctional, dehumanizing, unjust and exploitive. Can guidance really be “infallible” when it largely fails to address what is really going on in the world? Isn’t there is basic dishonesty involved that contradicts any claim to “infallibility”?

Again, the main purpose of such communications from the BWC is to start a new cycle of bureaucratic reinvention (BR), and the main function of BR is to create an alternative reality in which the history of the pattern of failures and mistakes in bahai culture/organization is “studiously” unmentioned. Various distractions are needed to accomplish this objective, e.g., individual failings are magnified and fed into a “blaming” process. People’s need for a sense of group belonging and higher purpose are exploited more than satisfied. The unsatisfied tend to keep coming back for more, in some cases for a very long time after it quit making sense to do so.

In perpetuating such a dehumanizing set of arrangements, bahai “leadership” by nature becomes even further dehumanized in how it marginalizes critics, dissidents and non-conformists that want to tell the truth.

Innovation, experimentation and alternatives are stifled.

The above article is nothing short of covenant breaking, if you do not respect the administrative system brought by The Lord of this age then why not call this blog: I say I am a Baha’i, but I don’t really believe it rants.

Good Day Oldgar9

I reiterate what I said. The infallibility of the UHJ is subjective. `It reside within the Bahai concept only. If all Bahais who are group thinking followers do agree with all the decision of UHJ even if the result after implemented such decision is negative the UHJ is thus infallible. The final blame will be that the Bahais who is lacking or need spiritual upliftment etc etc. rush to Ruhi as if a miracle….

If you do ponder and re read all the UHJ Ridvan message since 30 years back regarding teaching and method you will perceive that the UHJ is making no headway.

Many Bahais said that this site are for those who has problem with the faith.
But if you take time to think you will see many contradiction in the Writings between the three central figures.

I have requested explanation on some passages from the UHJ who has dare to never reply.

That what you call independent investigation of truth. Are Bahais goat-sheep people.

“When freedom of conscience, liberty of thought and right of speech prevail, that is to say, when every man according to his idealization may give utterance to his own beliefs development and growth are inevitable.”

(‘Abdul-Baha, Star of the West, Vol. 3, No. 10, p. 19)

Oldgar9, it seems from your blanket comment above, you disagree with ‘Abdul-Baha’s words which, to me, indicate, that we need freedom of expression. If you are interested in an discussion, then point out what it is that you consder ‘covenant breaking’ and if you have misunderstood something someone who can elaborate and if there is something ‘questionable’ then we can learn from your perspective.

Baquia, I am assuming that Oldgar9 is a Bahai, and so as a member of the Bahai community myself, I apologise to you that another Bahai is using name calling as a tactic.

Oldgar9 is most likely just another simple minded, brainwashed fundamentalist.

The ease with which such people freely invoke their regressive / oppressive paradigm (autocratic/paternalistic/condescending) tells us much about how “corrupted” haifan bahaism has by fundamentalist trends in the world.

The UHJ is corrupt. There is nothing AUTHENTICALLY compassionate, just, intelligent, or spiritually insightful in what they say.

They are desperately holding onto autocratic power (which will always see in stricly condescending terms, the lowly “believer” as an “inferior” slave/child/whore to be exploited for the glory of the “high organization” which is a symbol/archetype for a corrupt version of imperialist transcendance).

Bahais should be protesting in the streets against the autocratic rule of the UHJ and the rest of haifan bahai administration.

The fact that they are not protesting in the streets proves that they have completely “bought into” self-censorship and their own spiritual/social enslavement.

This is the problem with (anti-democratic) prophetic religion, which needs to perpetuate a spiritual “middle man scam” that denies direct access to Spirit by each person.

Prophetic religion provides a static and safe “comfort zone” (“Strict Daddy” archetype) for people that are afraid of more open and evolutionary ways of being.

Fear-based beliefs are always backward and regressive. The “safety” of such beliefs is always purchased at the price of freedom, dynamism and innovation.

Backward, fear-based beliefs are anti-democracy and anti-evolutionary.

have a nice day.