Abrahamic Bahai

[Quiddity]

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.

Crystal clear.....thanks. Now I'm still pondering over whether the Administrative Order stretches their authority over to theological clarifications. It would seem to me like they would, otherwise it would be like driving a car, but not knowing where you are going or what that place is all about. The laws are set in place to mimic or get you all closer to God right? One can only do that if one knows "something" about God (nature of God if you will) no? Those "somethings" are set in stone in these writings correct? And if so, then those certainly are "theological issues".

 

[Booko]

I dunno why I didn't go looking for it earlier, but maybe this will help:

http://bahai-library.com/index.php5?file=uhj_power_elucidation

This published document from the UHJ deals with the difference between the Guardian's (that would be Shoghi Effendi) authority of "interpretation" and the UHJ's authority of "elucidation."

This is probably the most salient part (italics mine):

[412.4] In a letter dated 9 March 1965, the Universal House of Justice stresses the "profound difference" that exists between the "interpretations of the Guardian and the elucidations of the House of Justice in exercise of its function to 'deliberate upon all problems which have caused difference, questions that are obscure, and matters that are not expressly recorded in the Book."' (Wellspring of Guidance, p. 52) Among these is the outlining of such steps as are necessary to establish the World Order of Bahá'u'lláh on this earth. The elucidations of the Universal House of Justice stem from its legislative function, while the interpretations of the Guardian represent the true intent inherent in the Sacred Texts. The major distinction between the two functions is that legislation with its resultant outcome of elucidation is susceptible of amendment by the House of Justice itself, whereas the Guardian's interpretation is a statement of truth which cannot be varied.

[412.5] Shoghi Effendi has given categorical assurances that neither the Guardian nor the Universal House of Justice "can, nor will ever, infringe upon the sacred and prescribed domain of the other." 3 Therefore, the friends can be sure that the Universal House of Justice will not engage in interpreting the Holy Writings. . . .

 

[Quiddity]

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

Maybe it's terminology that I'm getting stuck on. But everything you mentioned sounds much like "disciplinary matters" to us Roman Catholics. Such things to us are subject to change depending on needs, circumstances, culture, etc. The decisions are also made by our authorities and nobody else. We all know where to go for such matters.

What I'm looking for is whether the UHJ tells you if God is male, female, neither, both, or if God was once a human. Attributes of God matter far more to me then disciplinary matters. Personally, I'm very liberal in such things. They can squabble all night on whether to have the altar in the front of the Church or closer to the middle (practices, tradition, disciplinary matters, etc.) so long as they have their doctrines in place that is where the meat is and that is what I hold on too. Kind of difficult to grab on to bones.... .

Hope that clarifies things.

 

[Booko]

The laws are set in place to mimic or get you all closer to God right?

On an individual level, yes. But there is a larger purpose as well, which is to bring about the unification of humanity and the peace that has been promised to us by all the religions.

 

[Quiddity]

On an individual level, yes. But there is a larger purpose as well, which is to bring about the unification of humanity and the peace that has been promised to us by all the religions.

Sounds similar to us.
I was kinda hoping you would address specifically this part of my comments:

Crystal clear.....thanks. Now I'm still pondering over whether the Administrative Order stretches their authority over to theological clarifications. It would seem to me like they would, otherwise it would be like driving a car, but not knowing where you are going or what that place is all about. The laws are set in place to mimic or get you all closer to God right? One can only do that if one knows "something" about God (nature of God if you will) no? Those "somethings" are set in stone in these writings correct? And if so, then those certainly are "theological issues".

 

[Quiddity]

I dunno why I didn't go looking for it earlier, but maybe this will help:

http://bahai-library.com/index.php5?file=uhj_power_elucidation

This published document from the UHJ deals with the difference between the Guardian's (that would be Shoghi Effendi) authority of "interpretation" and the UHJ's authority of "elucidation."

This is probably the most salient part (italics mine):

[412.4] In a letter dated 9 March 1965, the Universal House of Justice stresses the "profound difference" that exists between the "interpretations of the Guardian and the elucidations of the House of Justice in exercise of its function to 'deliberate upon all problems which have caused difference, questions that are obscure, and matters that are not expressly recorded in the Book."' (Wellspring of Guidance, p. 52) Among these is the outlining of such steps as are necessary to establish the World Order of Bahá'u'lláh on this earth. The elucidations of the Universal House of Justice stem from its legislative function, while the interpretations of the Guardian represent the true intent inherent in the Sacred Texts. The major distinction between the two functions is that legislation with its resultant outcome of elucidation is susceptible of amendment by the House of Justice itself, whereas the Guardian's interpretation is a statement of truth which cannot be varied.

[412.5] Shoghi Effendi has given categorical assurances that neither the Guardian nor the Universal House of Justice "can, nor will ever, infringe upon the sacred and prescribed domain of the other." 3 Therefore, the friends can be sure that the Universal House of Justice will not engage in interpreting the Holy Writings. . . .

That's interesting, so the UHJ can't capture the true intent of the Sacred Texts? Or rather it can, but it has to work at clarifying it through amendments?

 

[Booko]

That's interesting, so the UHJ can't capture the true intent of the Sacred Texts? Or rather it can, but it has to work at clarifying it through amendments?

I think if you look at some of those unpublished letters you'll see a general approach, which is to refer to specific passages.

They don't seem to go in for blanket statements about what people "have to believe" about theological matters that I've ever noticed. The Writings usually speak well enough on their own, I guess. If someone makes a mistake, well, they make a mistake.

(I hope this was actually responsive.)

 

[Booko]

Sounds similar to us.

Well, I did say we had a lot in common.

I was kinda hoping you would address specifically this part of my comments:

Crystal clear.....thanks. Now I'm still pondering over whether the Administrative Order stretches their authority over to theological clarifications. It would seem to me like they would, otherwise it would be like driving a car, but not knowing where you are going or what that place is all about. The laws are set in place to mimic or get you all closer to God right? One can only do that if one knows "something" about God (nature of God if you will) no? Those "somethings" are set in stone in these writings correct? And if so, then those certainly are "theological issues".

Oh, I would not expect the UHJ to make any pronouncements on the nature of God. Not when they have Writings like this to contend with:

THE UNKNOWABLE ESSENCE

All the people have formed a god in the world of thought, and that form of their own imagination they worship; when the fact is that the imagined form is finite and the human mind is infinite. Surely the infinite is greater than the finite, for imagination is accidental while the mind is essential; surely the essential is greater than the accidental.

Therefore consider: All the sects and peoples worship their own thought; they create a god in their own minds and acknowledge him to be the creator of all things, when that form is a superstition -- thus people adore and worship imagination.

That Essence of the Divine Entity and the Unseen of the unseen is holy above imagination and is beyond thought. Consciousness doth not reach It. Within the capacity of comprehension of a produced reality that Ancient Reality cannot be contained. It is a different world; from it there is no information; arrival thereat is impossible; attainment thereto is prohibited and inaccesible. This much is known: It exists and Its existence is certain and proven -- but the condition is unknown.

All the philosophers and the doctors knew that It is, but they were perplexed in the comprehension of Its existence and were at last discouraged, and in great despair they left this world. For the comprehension of the condition and mysteries of that Reality of realities and Mystery of mysteries there is need for another power and another sense. That power and sense is not possessed by mankind, therefore they have not found any information. For example: If a man possess the power of hearing, the power of tasting, the power of smelling and the power of feeling, but no power of seeing, he cannot see. Hence, through the powers and senses present in man the realization of the Unseen Reality, which is pure and holy above the reach of doubts, is impossible. Other powers are needed and other senses required. If those powers and senses are obtained, then information can be had; otherwise, not.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 381)

Believe me, after reading stuff like this, I really get why Jews don't even speak the Name or attempt to explain the nature of God, other than there being only one. (hm...sounds like a Highlander episode there. )

I'm sure I've said before, my cat has a far better chance of understanding what it is to be human than we will ever have of understanding the nature of God.

That doesn't mean we can't have a connection to God. We have the prophets and the Holy Spirit, after all.

 

[Quiddity]

I think if you look at some of those unpublished letters you'll see a general approach, which is to refer to specific passages.

They don't seem to go in for blanket statements about what people "have to believe" about theological matters that I've ever noticed. The Writings usually speak well enough on their own, I guess. If someone makes a mistake, well, they make a mistake.

(I hope this was actually responsive.)

Kinda. Either way, bless you for your patience. We catholics can be a rowdy and needy bunch eh?

It sounds to me as if the texts are so clear as to not really need interpreting. Which is great, but as you know clarity doesn't gurantee proper understanding. Which is ok if you have someone to correct you, (like the UHJ) but at that point referring to the Sacred texts is moot don't you think? It would be like me misinterpreting a verse in the Bible and the priest telling me to go back and read the clear meaning of the Scriptures. I would look at him like this---->:areyoucra

 

[Quiddity]

[/color]Well, I did say we had a lot in common.



Oh, I would not expect the UHJ to make any pronouncements on the nature of God. Not when they have Writings like this to contend with:

THE UNKNOWABLE ESSENCE

All the people have formed a god in the world of thought, and that form of their own imagination they worship; when the fact is that the imagined form is finite and the human mind is infinite. Surely the infinite is greater than the finite, for imagination is accidental while the mind is essential; surely the essential is greater than the accidental.

Therefore consider: All the sects and peoples worship their own thought; they create a god in their own minds and acknowledge him to be the creator of all things, when that form is a superstition -- thus people adore and worship imagination.

That Essence of the Divine Entity and the Unseen of the unseen is holy above imagination and is beyond thought. Consciousness doth not reach It. Within the capacity of comprehension of a produced reality that Ancient Reality cannot be contained. It is a different world; from it there is no information; arrival thereat is impossible; attainment thereto is prohibited and inaccesible. This much is known: It exists and Its existence is certain and proven -- but the condition is unknown.

All the philosophers and the doctors knew that It is, but they were perplexed in the comprehension of Its existence and were at last discouraged, and in great despair they left this world. For the comprehension of the condition and mysteries of that Reality of realities and Mystery of mysteries there is need for another power and another sense. That power and sense is not possessed by mankind, therefore they have not found any information. For example: If a man possess the power of hearing, the power of tasting, the power of smelling and the power of feeling, but no power of seeing, he cannot see. Hence, through the powers and senses present in man the realization of the Unseen Reality, which is pure and holy above the reach of doubts, is impossible. Other powers are needed and other senses required. If those powers and senses are obtained, then information can be had; otherwise, not.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 381)

Believe me, after reading stuff like this, I really get why Jews don't even speak the Name or attempt to explain the nature of God, other than there being only one. (hm...sounds like a Highlander episode there. )

I'm sure I've said before, my cat has a far better chance of understanding what it is to be human than we will ever have of understanding the nature of God.

That doesn't mean we can't have a connection to God. We have the prophets and the Holy Spirit, after all.

I'm with you and believe me we have our share of mysteries and unknowns which we try to explain without much success. But I'm sitting here thinking "C'mon God give me something I can hold on too" (theological issue). Know what I mean?

Otherwise what meaning do laws have without theology to support it?

 

[Booko]

Kinda. Either way, bless you for your patience. We catholics can be a rowdy and needy bunch eh?

How about "a fun bunch"? I did marry a Catholic, you know. He wasn't just fun because he was half Irish. haha!

It sounds to me as if the texts are so clear as to not really need interpreting.

Generally speaking, yeah they are. Though that still doesn't mean you can't take multiple meanings out of them, all of which are "true." Of course, the same could be said of the Gospel, so that's not exactly unique.

Which is great, but as you know clarity doesn't gurantee proper understanding. Which is ok if you have someone to correct you, (like the UHJ) but at that point referring to the Sacred texts is moot don't you think? It would be like me misinterpreting a verse in the Bible and the priest telling me to go back and read the clear meaning of the Scriptures. I would look at him like this---->:areyoucra

Ah, but are there not some ideas within your own faith that you've heard people promote, but thought, "hm...well, that's not exactly right"? It happens in your faith and mine, but the hope is that people will figure things out in time, esp. given a little direction. And the RCC still remains in one piece, despite the wealth of different opinions. I've always thought that was one of your faith's best qualities -- y'all don't split up over trivia, but stay and learn to work together.

When the opinions get too far off base, the Pope and the Cardinals deal with it, yes? They point to scripture and tradition to support their case whenever something goes too far astray.

With us, the UHJ points to scripture and tradition as well. It's just that our tradition happens to be...written. And the Writings are recent enough that we are not dealing with a very different culture from the past. There are a lot of problems in understanding we don't have to tackle, and no debate about what is "authentic" or not. It's a great timesaver.

I'm not sure if this is too responsive to your question, though.

Maybe we need to explore the sorts of things where a proper understanding is essential for "salvation"?

I know that Christians mostly (if not all) believe that a proper understanding of the nature of Christ is essential, but that's not a view we share, as far as I've seen anyway. Belief *is* critical -- but...what kind of belief and in what?

Just as we cannot truly know the Unknowable Essence, we can't really fully understand persons like Christ either -- they have one foot in the world of humanity, but the other is firmly planted in the world of Divine. These persons, the Manifestations, Prophets, Founders of religions, of whatever you call them -- are not like us normal folk.

I don't think I could possibly understand the nature of either Christ or Baha'u'llah. But it is enough to have some understanding of their Message and to put it into practice as best I can. That would be doing God's Will, whether I understand the nature of God or no.

 

[Popeyesays]

I think, Victor, that part of the difficulty of understanding is that the RCC has a long and basic understanding of the role of the clergy. The Baha`i Faith has NO clergy, therefore the responsibility for understanding is individual. While it may seem this makes us subject to penalty for misunderstanding, we know that God judges us not just with infinite justice, but also infinite mercy. So, in essence, we get points for effort and effort is required, not perfection.

I am enjoying this discussion very much, I consider it an honor to drop in a comment from time to time.

Regards,
Scott

 

[andyjamal]

I found these quotes in the Ocean Research Library. I hope they clear things up.

"It must always be remembered that authoritative interpretation of the Teachings was, after 'Abdu'l-Bahá, the exclusive right of the Guardian, and fell within the 'sacred and prescribed domain' of the Guardianship, and therefore the Universal House of Justice cannot and will not infringe upon that domain. The exclusive sphere of the Universal House of Justice is to 'pronounce upon and deliver the final judgment on such laws and ordinances as Bahá'u'lláh has not expressly revealed'.
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 311)

"Unto the Most Holy Book every one must turn and all that is not expressly recorded therein must be referred to the Universal House of Justice."
(Compilations, The Compilation of Compilations vol. I, p. 364)

it has the authority to decide upon "all problems which have caused difference, questions that are obscure, and matters that are not expressly recorded in the Book."
(The Universal House of Justice, 1996 Feb 18, Authority of the Universal House of Justice)

the function of making authoritative interpretations of the Teachings is confined solely and exclusively to the Guardian. Neither the Universal House of Justice, nor any other institution, person or group of persons can assume that function.
(The Universal House of Justice, 1997 Jun 03, Interpretational Authority of the House of Justice)

only the written text of the Revelation is regarded as authoritative. There is no Oral Law as in Judaism, no Tradition of the Church as in Christianity, no Hadith as in Islam. Thirdly, a clear distinction is drawn between interpretation and legislation. Authoritative interpretation is the exclusive prerogative of 'Abdu'l-Bahá and the Guardian, while infallible legislation is the function of the Universal House of Justice.
(The Universal House of Justice, Messages 1963 to 1986, p. 517)

The legislation enacted by the Universal House of Justice is different from interpretation. Authoritative interpretation, as uttered by 'Abdu'l-Bahá and the Guardian, is a divinely guided statement of what the Word of God means. The divinely inspired legislation of the Universal House of Justice does not attempt to say what the revealed Word means -- it states what must be done in cases where the revealed Text or its authoritative interpretation is not explicit. It is, therefore, on quite a different level from the Sacred Text
(The Universal House of Justice, Messages 1963 to 1986, p. 518)

 

[Popeyesays]

Very good, Andy!

Regards,
Scott

 

[Quiddity]

Ok, that clarified things a bit more (almost there... ). So there is no Oral Authoritative voice for Bahai, right? The UHJ simply legislates infallibly, right? It simply reiterates what is already written. But it does so infallibly? And does it on non-theological points only?


Tell me if I have this right and I will take the next step.

 

[Popeyesays]

Ok, that clarified things a bit more (almost there... ). So there is no Oral Authoritative voice for Bahai, right? The UHJ simply legislates infallibly, right? It simply reiterates what is already written. But it does so infallibly? And does it on non-theological points only?


Tell me if I have this right and I will take the next step.

"Know that sinlessness [infallibility] is of two kinds: essential sinlessness and acquired sinlessness. In like manner there is essential knowledge and acquired knowledge and so it is with other names and attributes. Essential sinlessness is peculiar to the universal Manifestations, for it is his essential requirement, and an essential requirement cannot be separated from the thing itself...But acquired sinlessness [infallibility] is not a natural necessity; on the contrary, it is a ray of the bounty of sinlessness which shines from the Sun of Reality upon hearts, and grants a share and portion of itself to souls...To epitomize: essential sinlessness belongs especially to the universal Manifestations, and the acquired sinlessness is granted every holy soul. For instance, the General House of Justice, if it be established under the necessary conditions--with members elected from all the people--the House of Justice will be under the protection of the guardianship of God. If that House of Justice shall decide unanimously, or by a majority, upon any question not mentioned in the Book (Kitab-i-Aqdas), that decision and command will be guarded from mistake. Now the members of the House of Justice have not, individually, essential sinlessness; but the body of the House of Justice is under the protection of God, this is called conferred infallibility" (Some Answered Questions, pp. 197-199).

Note the identification between 'sinlessness' and 'infallibility

Regards,
Scott

 

[Quiddity]

"Know that sinlessness [infallibility] is of two kinds: essential sinlessness and acquired sinlessness. In like manner there is essential knowledge and acquired knowledge and so it is with other names and attributes. Essential sinlessness is peculiar to the universal Manifestations, for it is his essential requirement, and an essential requirement cannot be separated from the thing itself...But acquired sinlessness [infallibility] is not a natural necessity; on the contrary, it is a ray of the bounty of sinlessness which shines from the Sun of Reality upon hearts, and grants a share and portion of itself to souls...To epitomize: essential sinlessness belongs especially to the universal Manifestations, and the acquired sinlessness is granted every holy soul. For instance, the General House of Justice, if it be established under the necessary conditions--with members elected from all the people--the House of Justice will be under the protection of the guardianship of God. If that House of Justice shall decide unanimously, or by a majority, upon any question not mentioned in the Book (Kitab-i-Aqdas), that decision and command will be guarded from mistake. Now the members of the House of Justice have not, individually, essential sinlessness; but the body of the House of Justice is under the protection of God, this is called conferred infallibility" (Some Answered Questions, pp. 197-199).

Note the identification between 'sinlessness' and 'infallibility

Regards,
Scott

Would essential sinlessness be theological matters? vs. acquired sinlessness is that of discplinary matters, rituals, etc.?

BTW, infallibility = sinlessness to you guys?
I not sure I got that.

 

[Popeyesays]

The Manifestation is Essentially infallible, He commits no wrong. The institutions have converred infallibility which means that a decision will be sinless in that it will cause no essential harm. The Institutions of the Houses of Justice can coneivably make a mistake, but we are told that acting in unity will protect us from causing harm while any error will bring itself to light. The Assemblies and the House have the ability to change their minds, and reverse their decisions if it becomes obvious that they should.

It's the acting in unity part, that is crucial.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Quiddity]

The Manifestation is Essentially infallible, He commits no wrong. The institutions have converred infallibility which means that a decision will be sinless in that it will cause no essential harm. The Institutions of the Houses of Justice can coneivably make a mistake, but we are told that acting in unity will protect us from causing harm while any error will bring itself to light. The Assemblies and the House have the ability to change their minds, and reverse their decisions if it becomes obvious that they should.

It's the acting in unity part, that is crucial.

Regards,
Scott

Got you! The UHJ can conceivably make an error, but it's corrected through unity of the believers.....ok.

I think the most difficult thing I had grasping is that UHJ has legislative authority and I can't honestly see the difference between the authority they have and the authority held by the Guradians. They both essentially clarify matters that either weren't there at all or already existed.

 

[Quiddity]

That's because, to the best of my understanding, there isn't a difference as to what their authority is for.

Well, the quotes that andy provided seem to attempt to say otherwise. I read them more then once and I can't see how anyone can really legislate without interpreting....