• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Abrahamic Bahai

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Popeyesays said:
That's a very succinct question and gets right down the nit and the grit so to speak.

I think the best answer is that a Baha`i is free to interpret things in just about anyway he needs, BUT he is NEVER allowed to offer that interpretation to others as binding on them in anyway.

One who does demand that other Baha`i's follow his interpretations is violating the covenant which gives no individual the right to do that. He can offer his interpretation as opinion, mind you, but insisting his opinion is correct is never appropriate.

Regards,
Scott

Isn't that what the Shoghi Effendi and UHJ essentially do? What's the difference?
 

9harmony

Member
Hi Victor,

the difference is that only Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice have been granted the explicit authority to do so. The rest of us have no such authority. does that help?

Have a great day!
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
9harmony said:
Hi Victor,

the difference is that only Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice have been granted the explicit authority to do so. The rest of us have no such authority. does that help?

Have a great day!

But that authority (as I understand it so far) doesn't extend to theological issues, right?
 

9harmony

Member
Victor said:
But that authority (as I understand it so far) doesn't extend to theological issues, right?

i hope someone else will chime in and correct me if i'm wrong, but i think that's backwards, their authority doesn't extend outside of theological issues.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
9harmony said:
i hope someone else will chime in and correct me if i'm wrong, but i think that's backwards, their authority doesn't extend outside of theological issues.

Maybe it is I that has misunderstood. That's what I understood from Booko's posts here:
Interpretative decisions made by Shoghi Effendi and the "House" are binding. Though if you read them (you can find them online) you'd see they deal with mundane questions about application of, say, laws regarding marriage, burial, etc. and not wider theological points like "the nature of God."
 

9harmony

Member
Victor said:
Maybe it is I that has misunderstood. That's what I understood from Booko's posts here:
Interpretative decisions made by Shoghi Effendi and the "House" are binding. Though if you read them (you can find them online) you'd see they deal with mundane questions about application of, say, laws regarding marriage, burial, etc. and not wider theological points like "the nature of God."

that's why i hope one of the more scholarly Baha'i's here will help out. ;)
 

andyjamal

servant
I believe the Universal House of Justice has the authority to deal with any issues regarding the Baha'i Faith that need to be dealt with--theological or otherwise. However the authoritative Baha'i writings, ie. from Baha'u'llah, the Bab, and Abdu'l-Baha, are so extensive and straightforward on theological issues that further expounding is not necessary (and anything they didn't make clear, Shoghi Effendi certainly did.) On the other hand, the minor details of social law and institutional structure were intentionally left, by the central figures of the Faith, for the UHJ to decide upon as they see fit (based on the contingencies of the times).

I hope this helps.:)
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
Victor said:
Isn't that what the Shoghi Effendi and UHJ essentially do? What's the difference?

Okay, let's try this:

A believer writes to Shoghi Effendi (back when he was alive) and asks what is the meaning of the First Arabic Hidden Word? Shoghi Effendi might write back and explain it from a theological point of view.

If I write a letter to the Universal House of Justice and ask the same question, the House will advise me to read Shoghi Effendi's explanation and other Baha`i text sources for guidance. They will NOT tell me how to interpret it, that is not within their defined parameters.

The defined parameter of the House is to legislate whatever is NOT covered in the Text and the interpretations of Abd'ul Baha or Shoghi Effendi. The Guardian passed away without an eligible successor. The House ruled on what was appropriate behavior under those circumstances because it was NOT covered in the Baha`i writings or interpretations. That was within the direct parameters of the House's decisions.

The House also has the option of reversing it's decisions in the future if conditions change.

Regards,
Scott
 

arthra

Baha'i
For me as a Baha'i the source of authority are the Writings of Baha'u'llah and the Interpretations of Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi. The Universal House of Justice has conferred infallibility and deals with matters not covered in the Writings.

We don't really have a credo as much as say in Christianity where people fought over the doctrines of the Trinity and so on, but if it (say a belief or doctrine) cannot be supported in the Writings of Baha'u'llah and the interpretations of Abdul-baha and Shoghi Effendi then it doesn't have any real merit for Baha'is.

-Art
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Ok, now you guys have me all confused. :bonk:Read my observations thus far.

Booko post# 14
Though if you read them (you can find them online) you'd see they deal with mundane questions about application of, say, laws regarding marriage, burial, etc. and not wider theological points like "the nature of God."

My interpretation:
Authoritative body interprets/clarifies writings that deal mainly with non-theological issues.

arthra post# 17
The Baha'is elect their own administration on the local, national and international levels and are responsible for the Faith.

My interpretation:
Authoritative body interprets/clarifies writings that deal with matters of faith.

Popeyesays post# 20
Baha`i is free to interpret things in just about anyway he needs, BUT he is NEVER allowed to offer that interpretation to others as binding on them in anyway.

My interpretation:
Authoritative body interpretations and clarifications are stumped by Bahai freedom to interpret anyway he needs. Making any administrative and authoritative bodies moot.

9harmony post# 22
the difference is that only Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice have been granted the explicit authority to do so. The rest of us have no such authority.

My interpretation:
The freedom isn’t as free as I initially understood it. Shoghi Effendi and UHJ have final say on non-theological matters.

jmoum post# 28
So no, as far as I know, they're authority does not extend to theological issues.

My interpretation:
Same as Booko’s conclusion.

*Jamal* post# 29
I believe the Universal House of Justice has the authority to deal with any issues regarding the Baha'i Faith that need to be dealt with--theological or otherwise.

My interpretation:
Authoritative body interprets/clarifies writings that deal with matters of discipline, faith, morals/theological issues in essence.

Popeyesays post# 30
Universal House of Justice ………They will NOT tell me how to interpret it, that is not within their defined parameters.

My interpretation:
UHJ will not tell you how to interpret or tell the meaning of the text, they simply ask you to read it yourself.

arthra post# 31
For me as a Baha'i the source of authority are the Writings of Baha'u'llah and the Interpretations of Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi. The Universal House of Justice has conferred infallibility and deals with matters not covered in the Writings.

My interpretation:
The writings are the source of authority. The UHJ are more of an administrative body pointing to the writings. Their interpretations are not binding on the Bahai followers.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
One thing that seems clear to me thus far is that you all agree that the Writings of Baha'u'llah and the Interpretations of Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi are authoritative. Outside of that I'm trying to figure out how much authority UHJ actually has and where their parameters are. Thus far it seems they don't have much of any authority.

Hope you guys can set me straight for my education....:slap:
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
9harmony said:
when my daughter took a world religions class in college, the text book listed them as one person, she spent alot of time trying to correct their misconceptions, but when the final exam rolled around, he tested them according to the text book which was inaccurate on many counts. <sigh>

alot of misinformation out there. :(

Um, the common one years ago was that we are a sect of Islam.

Um...yeah, and Christianity and Islam are sects of Judaism? :confused:

There was a common jounalists reference tome used years ago that listed us as a "sect" and so no matter what we said about who and what we are -- that's how they reported us.

I don't see that anymore, so I guess they must've changed the book.

And now I've derailed the thread again. aargh!
 

9harmony

Member
Booko said:
Um, the common one years ago was that we are a sect of Islam.

Um...yeah, and Christianity and Islam are sects of Judaism? :confused:

There was a common jounalists reference tome used years ago that listed us as a "sect" and so no matter what we said about who and what we are -- that's how they reported us.

I don't see that anymore, so I guess they must've changed the book.

And now I've derailed the thread again. aargh!

yes, that was also part of the misconceptions she tried to correct, this occurred only a couple years ago, so hopefully they've gotten new books since then, but i know it was frustrating for her, as they were graded on their final exam according to the book. <sigh>
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
Victor said:
Oh sorry, I hope I didn’t give you the impression that is where I was taking the similarity. I just used LDS because it’s something I’m more familiar with.


Oh no, I didn't get that impression at all. We do have some striking similarities with LDS, but it's just a pet peeve of mine that purported scholars write as if the "only" way there could be similarities between religions is because Founder A "copied" from an earlier source. Sometimes there are similarities just because there are some universal truths in human existence, and no one plagiarized anything, you know? And other times, ideas spring up in multiple places, just because they are ideas whose time has come.

I summarized it in 3 points (correct me if I’m wrong):

-must be the writings of these 3 figures
-Authoritative interpretation and defining is done by Shoghi Effendi and UHJ on non-theological matters.
-Prophet comes every thousand years with certain characteristics and in bad times.

Roughly every thousand years. Obviously, there was less than that between Jesus and Muhammad, and more between Muhammad and the Bab and Baha'u''llah. You can't exactly set your watch by it or anything. :)

(NOTE: differences in time periods should in no way be taken to imply that anyone's message was "better" or more "long lasting" than another's.)

This leads me to my next question. As you know, it is on theological issues that people either divide or unite. Bahai as I see it so far, seems to place more emphasis on non-theological practices as binding rather then on theological ones.

It's kind of hard to tell what people actually believe, but it's much easier to see how they behave. I'm not sure how you'd regulate beliefs unless there are actions behind them anyway.

People put their personal ideas out there all the time when they seem to be more personal than having anything to do with Baha'i Writings, but there's lots of room for that. Everyone, and that means everyone, needs to work on spiritual maturity anyway, and we all need time to discover what the Writings say, so there's great tolerance for that.

The main issue that comes up in that regard is in publishing. Just as the RCC has its "imprimatur," we have something similar. Since it's been explicitly written by Baha'u'llah who has the authority to interpret texts, it's not left to any Schmo to do that on their own.

If I, as a Baha'i, wanted to publish a book on the faith, I'd have to get it approved by the Universal House of Justice, or I'd risk having my Administrative Rights removed. That may sound punitive, especially to us libertarian American sorts, but the advantage is we are not swamped by hordes of books of personal opinions being paraded as what the faith genuinely teaches.

The "imprimatur" serves the same purpose to unify Catholics, yes?

Now, if any non-Baha'i wants to, they can publish anything they like, and it's really not our business. Our laws apply to us, because by becoming Baha'is we accepted them.

How free is the Bahai believer allowed to stretch his/her theological views before it’s going into deep waters? How does one know they are going into deep waters if most theological issues are defined?

The theological issues are *written*, but that doesn't at all imply that we actually understand them so completely. Baha'u'llah quotes a tradition found in a couple of other religions: "For every verse there are 70 meanings, only one of which is commonly known among the people."

We view the Creative Word as being so..."creative" that there's ample room for divergent understanding. In fact, I'd consider that one of the hallmarks of a real religion: the teachings (written or spoken) have great depth to them in many many ways.

And besides, as a Catholic I'm sure you've had the experience that the way you understood something about your own faith was different between when you were younger and when you were older?

The problems with different understandings only come in when egos are allowed to hold sway. We have some beliefs and practices that tend to dampen the effects of ego, though obviuosly they cannot eliminate that entirely.

FGS I think it was put a link to a website by a Baha'i (or so I assume) that contained some really...er...strange things like linking the Baha'i Faith with aliens or something. Well, that's certainly a new one on me, but I doubt anyone's said anything to the guy about it.

Am I completely off my rocker in my understanding? :cover:

No, not so far as I've read the thread yet.
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
jmoum said:
To the best of my knowledge, the Universal House of Justice is nothing more than an administrative body, meaning that their only purpose is to interpret and carry out Baha'i Laws and teachings. So no, as far as I know, they're authority does not extend to theological issues, at least, I don't know any instances where it has.

I was hoping to kick off a thread related to this issue, but I may have to PM Bruce and ask if he still has that info about Arius, because I think he missed it.

Surely the issue of whether Bishop Arius was "right" is a purely theological one (well, it might be historical too, but whatever), and as the Writings do somewhere make a reference to that, the House has in fact responded to one believer's query about the meaning of that passage.

In essence, the passage implies that while Arius was perhaps right about not joining Jesus with God, HE WAS COMPLETELY WRONG, because his ego got involved and it created disunity in the Church.

Thus the title of the thread: It is better to be unified than to be right.

That subject deserves a thread of its own. It's as mystifying at times to us as the dictum from Islam: "There is no freedom save in submission to God."

But the point I was trying to make is that, in practice, the Institutions at the National and Local level have no authority to say doodles on theological matters. Only the Universal House of Justice has that authority, and they seem to exercise it rarely. I don't believe it would be even remotely accurate to say the UHJ "tells Baha'is what to think."

As one of Baha'u'llah's principles is "independent investigation of the truth," if they did go around telling everyone what to think, they would be...violating one of the very laws they are there to uphold.

You know, Victor, we could kick off a thread on similarities between the RCC and the Baha'i Faith as well. There are quite a few, I think. I mentioned the idea of an imprimatur. There's infallibility. Hm, the role of the Pope and the College of Cardinals and how our "House" serve similar purposes to inspire, educate, guide, encourage and unify. And probably more I can't come up with at the moment.
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
Victor said:
Ok, now you guys have me all confused. :bonk:Read my observations thus far.

Booko post# 14
Though if you read them (you can find them online) you'd see they deal with mundane questions about application of, say, laws regarding marriage, burial, etc. and not wider theological points like "the nature of God."

My interpretation:
Authoritative body interprets/clarifies writings that deal mainly with non-theological issues.


Yes. Popeyesays spoke to this pretty well, I think. The House will give you some relevant Writings to go read for yourself, though having read them, the conclusion is usually kind obvious.

arthra post# 17
The Baha'is elect their own administration on the local, national and international levels and are responsible for the Faith.

My interpretation:
Authoritative body interprets/clarifies writings that deal with matters of faith.

It might be more complete to say that they are responsible for the administration of the Faith. It's handy to know that the whole polity is known as the "Administrative Order." (As opposed to the "Theological Order" I suppose)

Popeyesays post# 20
Baha`i is free to interpret things in just about anyway he needs, BUT he is NEVER allowed to offer that interpretation to others as binding on them in anyway.

My interpretation:
Authoritative body interpretations and clarifications are stumped by Bahai freedom to interpret anyway he needs. Making any administrative and authoritative bodies moot.

Not on matters of Baha'i law, they aren't. For example, and taking from a real life example, you are free to "understand" that Baha'i marriage law doesn't require you to get parental permission from non-Baha'i parents, but you'd be dead wrong, and your local institution will correct you on that. Should you be persistent in refusing to follow the marriage law, your local institution will recommend your Administrative Rights be removed, and the national institution will do so. There is not a lot of wiggle room in some of this "administrative" areas.

If, however, you wish to believe that rocks have souls, people might raise an eyebrow or two over the matter, but no institution will say anything about it, unless you very very publicall push it as "official Baha'i doctrine." Because as it was said, no *individual* has the right to say "this is Baha'i doctrine."

Even when we say things like that here, there's an unspoken (and sometimes spoken) understanding amonst Baha'is "well, as best as I understand and can explain it...this is what we believe."

One of the things you find out in the Baha'i Faith early on is that "consultation" or what passes as "debate" can and may consist of nothing more than people referencing passages from the Writings -- with NO insertion of anyone's understanding at all.

The devotional portion of Feast is like this. There are prayers and readings. Sermons or anything remotely like them are just...forbidden. There is NO ROOM for insertion of anyone's opinion on anything. It's assumed that people can hear what the Writings say, and will understand what they will.

If you want to hear opinions on the meaning of some passage, that's what the social portion of Feast is for. ;)

9harmony post# 22
the difference is that only Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice have been granted the explicit authority to do so. The rest of us have no such authority.

My interpretation:
The freedom isn’t as free as I initially understood it. Shoghi Effendi and UHJ have final say on non-theological matters.

Well, Shoghi Effendi died in the 50s, so his say is kinda final anyway. :D His letters and other books are available and used as a guide, of course.

No, the freedom is very free. We can say what we like. We just can't call it dogma on an individual level. I think this is the same in the RCC, yes? You might say that you believe Jesus taught the drinking of prune juice was a sin, and the Vatican would not phone you over it, but it would hardly be dogma....just your personal opinion, which may or may not be accurate.

*Jamal* post# 29
I believe the Universal House of Justice has the authority to deal with any issues regarding the Baha'i Faith that need to be dealt with--theological or otherwise.

My interpretation:
Authoritative body interprets/clarifies writings that deal with matters of discipline, faith, morals/theological issues in essence.

Popeyesays post# 30
Universal House of Justice ………They will NOT tell me how to interpret it, that is not within their defined parameters.

My interpretation:
UHJ will not tell you how to interpret or tell the meaning of the text, they simply ask you to read it yourself.

arthra post# 31
For me as a Baha'i the source of authority are the Writings of Baha'u'llah and the Interpretations of Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi. The Universal House of Justice has conferred infallibility and deals with matters not covered in the Writings.

My interpretation:
The writings are the source of authority. The UHJ are more of an administrative body pointing to the writings. Their interpretations are not binding on the Bahai followers.

Their interpretations are binding. It's just that what they choose to interpret is how to apply laws, and which laws are to be applied at this stage in our development.

To read portions of the Baha'i Writings that contain laws and ordinances can be very strange, if you don't first realize that those laws are meant to be applied in stages, and the UHJ gets to decide when and how they will be applied.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Booko said:
Oh no, I didn't get that impression at all. We do have some striking similarities with LDS, but it's just a pet peeve of mine that purported scholars write as if the "only" way there could be similarities between religions is because Founder A "copied" from an earlier source. Sometimes there are similarities just because there are some universal truths in human existence, and no one plagiarized anything, you know? And other times, ideas spring up in multiple places, just because they are ideas whose time has come.
Professionals in every field tend to attach things to other things already in existance. It's one of those bad habits we have. And I can see how annoying it can be.
Booko said:
Roughly every thousand years. Obviously, there was less than that between Jesus and Muhammad, and more between Muhammad and the Bab and Baha'u''llah. You can't exactly set your watch by it or anything. :)

(NOTE: differences in time periods should in no way be taken to imply that anyone's message was "better" or more "long lasting" than another's.)
Gotcha.....
Booko said:
It's kind of hard to tell what people actually believe, but it's much easier to see how they behave. I'm not sure how you'd regulate beliefs unless there are actions behind them anyway.
I'm not entirely sure I follow you here. Do you mean the faithful (Bahai) must first show ignorance or lack of discipline in order for it to be regulated?
Booko said:
People put their personal ideas out there all the time when they seem to be more personal than having anything to do with Baha'i Writings, but there's lots of room for that. Everyone, and that means everyone, needs to work on spiritual maturity anyway, and we all need time to discover what the Writings say, so there's great tolerance for that.

The main issue that comes up in that regard is in publishing. Just as the RCC has its "imprimatur," we have something similar. Since it's been explicitly written by Baha'u'llah who has the authority to interpret texts, it's not left to any Schmo to do that on their own.

If I, as a Baha'i, wanted to publish a book on the faith, I'd have to get it approved by the Universal House of Justice, or I'd risk having my Administrative Rights removed. That may sound punitive, especially to us libertarian American sorts, but the advantage is we are not swamped by hordes of books of personal opinions being paraded as what the faith genuinely teaches.

The "imprimatur" serves the same purpose to unify Catholics, yes?
Imprimatur simply means it's been looked over by the proper authorities to gurantee proper catholic teaching. It says "yes this is what we teach".....:yes: . But like any document, it still requires interpretation. Our system is setup to fix an error at any level. That doesn't mean people will accept it, but rather that if you believe and trust in the institution, that the system will eventually clarify/rid itself of misconceptions via the divinely guided body (Church).
Booko said:
The theological issues are *written*, but that doesn't at all imply that we actually understand them so completely. Baha'u'llah quotes a tradition found in a couple of other religions: "For every verse there are 70 meanings, only one of which is commonly known among the people."
In an earlier post you said,
Though if you read them (you can find them online) you'd see they deal with mundane questions about application of, say, laws regarding marriage, burial, etc. and not wider theological points like "the nature of God."
Are these the same writings?
Booko said:
We view the Creative Word as being so..."creative" that there's ample room for divergent understanding. In fact, I'd consider that one of the hallmarks of a real religion: the teachings (written or spoken) have great depth to them in many many ways.

And besides, as a Catholic I'm sure you've had the experience that the way you understood something about your own faith was different between when you were younger and when you were older?
Sure have. The only problem is that there is deep waters with borders that is quite clear to catholics. I know I can swim in the deep (and in fact do it often...:D ), but there comes a point where my understanding has broken past the borders. I'm sure you know where and how catholics fix that issue as I noted above.
Booko said:
The problems with different understandings only come in when egos are allowed to hold sway. We have some beliefs and practices that tend to dampen the effects of ego, though obviuosly they cannot eliminate that entirely.
That can get rather complicated. There is all sorts of reasons why people deviate from official teachings.
Booko said:
FGS I think it was put a link to a website by a Baha'i (or so I assume) that contained some really...er...strange things like linking the Baha'i Faith with aliens or something. Well, that's certainly a new one on me, but I doubt anyone's said anything to the guy about it.
Squak to him about it. How else is he to learn? :p
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
It's actually up to the National Spiritual Assemblies to review books on the faith before publication. So if I seek publication in the U.S. I should have the NSA of the United States vette the manuscript. If I seek publication in a British market, the NSA of Great Britain would be the vetting organization. I've had to look into this in the past.

The internet is a different proposition and in the last ten years internet publication of material has been exempt from prior review, the reasoning being that things are so quick on the net that the vetting process takes too much time. Now if I put up a website claiming that Baha`u'llah says that Quetzalcoatal was indeed a Manifestation of God then eventually some Baha`i review process woulod seek to correct me on that. To change my statement to Quetzalcoatal might or might not be a Manifestation of God but that no authoritative Baha`i writings identify him as such.

I remember that years ago some people were declared covenant breakers over this issue when they refused to soft-pedal their demands concerning Native American Prophets.

The truth is that neither Baha`u'llah, the Bab nor Abdu'l Baha make any mention of Native American Prophets other than saying that there were Manifestations of God Whose Name and Book have been lost to history. Whether Quetzalcoatal was, was not, a Manifestation of God, or indeed did he ever exist at all cannot be determined by reading the writings, since he is never named.

Regards,
Scott
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
The House has a lot of authority over many things. In any reference to the Baha`i Faith as a world religion their word is final for Baha`i's. They have the power to enforce obedience to the extent that only the House can declare an individual a covenant breaker. They have the power of the purse over the Shrines and Temples around the world. They direct overall expansion of the Faith by designating plans of action for various lengths of years, and consult with the National Assemblies in how they can best further those designs.

They have great weight in the respect of the body from Baha`i's around the world. The 'House' not the individuals are the Institution. The House appoints the Continental Counselors who have no authority of their own, but act as teachers and facilitators for communication everywhere, inspiring unity of effort.

They have the power of guidance by focusing on concerns at various points in the Baha`i year, and those documents are disseminated all over the world in appropriate languages so that unity can be maintained. And finally they are to the not-Baha`i world the 'authority' behind the faith.

This is all in addition to their mandated authority to legislate policy when necessary.

All of it is drawn from the clear mandate of creation provided by Baha`u'llah, clarified and interpreted by Abd'ul Baha, and made practical in detailed planning by Shoghi Effendi. The thread of continuity is clear and obvious-for the first time in any revealed religion.

Regards,
Scott
 
Top