Baha’i community members: Baha’is spreading misunderstandings and misinformation about the community

[Dawnofhope]

What I’m thinking is that if there were any law or policy against Baha’is promoting views contrary to Baha’i teachings, there would be some message somewhere saying so, and if people were removed from the membership for that reason, there would be a message informing us about that, without specifying who they were.

I agree there are no Baha’i laws per se that would prevent an individual promoting views contrary to Baha’i Teachings. On the other hand we’re exhorted to teach the Faith with love and wisdom. So deliberately promoting views contrary to what the Baha’i writings actually teach goes against the spirit of the faith. Truthfulness and trustworthiness are cardinal values.

I’m sure you are familiar with a document from the Universal House of Justice addressed to the USA Baha’i community in regards freedoms and rights.

In terms of the Covenant, dissidence is a moral and intellectual contradiction of the main objective animating the Bahá’í community, namely, the establishment of the unity of mankind.

Individual Rights and Freedoms—The Universal House of Justice

Personally, I wish I were better at bringing my life into conformity with the Teachings of Bahá’u’lláh. I do feel somewhat of a failure. However dissidence within the Baha’i community has never been my modus operandi.

i don’t have any reason to doubt the authenticity of the documents posted by the people who were removed. I just don’t agree with reading messages into them for the whole community, without those messages being validated by any institutions.

There are laws in New Zealand that permit an individual to request access to any personal information an institution has about them whether health information, a government agency or even a religious body. Those institutions are required by law to provide any personal information they have on file unless there is an exception all reason not to. So the individual concerned could have easily accessed the confidential information held by the National Assembly in question. Baha’i Assemblies are obligated to abide by the law of the land as are individuals. So I have no reason to doubt the documents authenticity either.

I also agree entirely with you comments about the documents not having been validated by the Baha’i institutions and applying the findings to the whole Baha’i community. The documents do however provide valuable insight as to why one individual had her membership removed by the Universal House of Justice. Knowing the extent of the efforts the Baha’i institutions made to direct her attention to the writings that would correct her erroneous understandings of the Baha’i Faith should provide some solace for both of us. There’s also the issue as to what degree she became a vociferous critic of the Baha’i Institutions over several years. I haven’t seen anyone on this forum behave like that. While I don’t agree with the path she took I believe she was sincere in what she believed. The very existence of her website indicates she continues to be a critic of the Baha’i institutions that she once declared allegiance to. I genuinely wish her well and feel no animosity towards her.

 

[Jim]

I agree there are no Baha’i laws per se that would prevent an individual promoting views contrary to Baha’i Teachings. On the other hand we’re exhorted to teach the Faith with love and wisdom. So deliberately promoting views contrary to what the Baha’i writings actually teach goes against the spirit of the faith. Truthfulness and trustworthiness are cardinal values.

I’m sure you are familiar with a document from the Universal House of Justice addressed to the USA Baha’i community in regards freedoms and rights.

In terms of the Covenant, dissidence is a moral and intellectual contradiction of the main objective animating the Bahá’í community, namely, the establishment of the unity of mankind.

Individual Rights and Freedoms—The Universal House of Justice

Personally, I wish I were better at bringing my life into conformity with the Teachings of Bahá’u’lláh. I do feel somewhat of a failure. However dissidence within the Baha’i community has never been my modus operandi.



There are laws in New Zealand that permit an individual to request access to any personal information an institution has about them whether health information, a government agency or even a religious body. Those institutions are required by law to provide any personal information they have on file unless there is an exception all reason not to. So the individual concerned could have easily accessed the confidential information held by the National Assembly in question. Baha’i Assemblies are obligated to abide by the law of the land as are individuals. So I have no reason to doubt the documents authenticity either.

I also agree entirely with you comments about the documents not having been validated by the Baha’i institutions and applying the findings to the whole Baha’i community. The documents do however provide valuable insight as to why one individual had her membership removed by the Universal House of Justice. Knowing the extent of the efforts the Baha’i institutions made to direct her attention to the writings that would correct her erroneous understandings of the Baha’i Faith should provide some solace for both of us. There’s also the issue as to what degree she became a vociferous critic of the Baha’i Institutions over several years. I haven’t seen anyone on this forum behave like that. While I don’t agree with the path she took I believe she was sincere in what she believed. The very existence of her website indicates she continues to be a critic of the Baha’i institutions that she once declared allegiance to. I genuinely wish her well and feel no animosity towards her.

I don’t see any reason to doubt that what is posted is what the messages actually said. My disagreement is with some individual interpretations of those messages that are being promoted by members of the Baha’i Faith community. Specifically, I see those messages being interpreted sometimes by members of the Baha’i Faith community as saying that it’s a violation of the Covenant for Baha’is to disagree in public with anything that the Universal House of Justice has said about homosexuality, ineligibility of women for election to the Universal House of Justice, or anything else that Baha’is have disagreed about. I’m saying that’s an individual interpretation of what those messages mean, that has not been validated by the authors of those messages. I’m saying that it is not a violation of the Covenant for a Baha’i to openly disagree with what the House of Justice has said about any of the topics that Baha’is have been feuding about on the Internet. For example, I don’t think that it’s a violation of the Covenant for me to openly disagree with saying that the ineligibility of women for membership on the Universal House of Justice is not open to being changed by a decision of the Universal House of Justice. I don’t think that it’s a violation of the Covenant for me to openly disagree with saying that “The condition of being sexually attracted to some object other than a mature member of the opposite sex ... is regarded by the Faith as a distortion of true human nature, as a problem to be overcome,”

i also disagree with some interpretations of other members of the Baha’i Faith community of what the House of Justice has said. For example, I don’t think that the House of Justice has ever said that there is a prohibition against “all homosexual relations,” or against marriage between two women or two men.

if you think that it’s a violation of the Covenant for me to be saying any of those things, then I would like to know if you have any reasons for thinking that, other than your personal interpretations of private messages to individuals.

 

[Jim]

So deliberately promoting views contrary to what the Baha’i writings actually teach goes against the spirit of the faith.

I don’t think that anything I’m saying is contrary to what Baha’i writings actually teach, and I don’t think that the House of Justice has any authority to say that it is. It has authority to tell me to stop saying it in public, and it has never done so. It has authority to disqualify me from the membership, and it has never done so. It has authority to respond to what I’ve been saying and doing on the Internet for more than 15 years, by warning national spiritual assemblies about it, but if it has ever done so, I’ve never heard anything about it.

I’ve been saying these things in Internet discussions for more than 15 years, and no institution has ever said that it’s wrong for me to be doing that, even when I’ve informed the Counselors and the House of Justice myself about what I’m doing.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I’m saying that it is not a violation of the Covenant for a Baha’i to openly disagree with what the House of Justice has said about any of the topics that Baha’is have been feuding about on the Internet.

The Key here is, that the covernant guides us to accept and embrace without hesitation and with the full enthusiasm of our hearts, all the decisions made by the Universal House of Justice.

The avenues to address any concerns we may have, is to get further clarification from our elected bodies and not by pushing our own views across all media.

The Baha'i have no magic exemptions in the process of building a true and lasting unity, a unity the Master longed for.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I don’t think that anything I’m saying is contrary to what Baha’i writings actually teach, and I don’t think that the House of Justice has any authority to say that it is. It has authority to tell me to stop saying it in public, and it has never done so. It has authority to disqualify me from the membership, and it has never done so. It has authority to respond to what I’ve been saying and doing on the Internet for more than 15 years, by warning national spiritual assemblies about it, but if it has ever done so, I’ve never heard anything about it.

I’ve been saying these things in Internet discussions for more than 15 years, and no institution has ever said that it’s wrong for me to be doing that, even when I’ve informed the Counselors and the House of Justice myself about what I’m doing.

I see those ideas are not correct.

I like to consider that love and guidance are always given in preference of any sanctions. It may be that it is monitored and overtime much good advice has been given and that it is seen that people are considering the advice.

Regards Tony

 

[Jim]

The documents do however provide valuable insight as to why one individual had her membership removed by the Universal House of Justice. ... I genuinely wish her well and feel no animosity towards her.

I had a warm and friendly conversation with her when I first met her on Talisman9. We haven’t kept in touch, and I don’t know if she would even remember me, but I’ve always had friendly feelings for her and thought she felt the same. As I understand it, she and all the other people who were denouncing the House of Justice agree that it’s better for her purposes and Baha’u’llah’s for her not to be a member.

 

[Jim]

The Key here is, that the covernant guides us to accept and embrace without hesitation and with the full enthusiasm of our hearts, all the decisions made by the Universal House of Justice.

Thank you. I haven’t seen any decision by the House of Justice that prohibits Baha’is from disagreeing with what it says about Baha’i teachings. Have you? I have never received any counseling from any Baha’i institutions advising me not to disagree in public with anything that the House of Justice says about Baha’i teachings, even when I’ve invited them to counsel me.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Thank you. I haven’t seen any decision by the House of Justice that prohibits Baha’is from disagreeing with what it says about Baha’i teachings. Have you? I have never received any counseling from any Baha’i institutions advising me not to disagree in public with anything that the House of Justice says about Baha’i teachings, even when I’ve invited them to counsel me.

I see it is intrinsic to the covernant and to me what the Universal House of Justice does in the first instance, is to guide people to those passages and let them decide.

I am sure you would be aware of what the a Covernant asks of us. The key is what Muhammad came to demonstrate and that is true and lasting submission to God's Will and not our own will.

Would you like to explore those passages?

I will be off to Church soon with my wife.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I had a warm and friendly conversation with her when I first met her on Talisman9. We haven’t kept in touch, and I don’t know if she would even remember me, but I’ve always had friendly feelings for her and thought she felt the same. As I understand it, she and all the other people who were denouncing the House of Justice agree that it’s better for her purposes and Baha’u’llah’s for her not to be a member.

It was a just choice for them to make, as I see it. There is correspondence available on the internet about those issues and how a few had withdrawn membership as a result.

Many references of RF go to some of their papers and their websites.

It shows me how pride in knowledge just overrides any possible unity. We are assured by Baha'u'llah that if any wrong decision is made, that embracing it in the True Spirit of Faith, will guide the Truth to be found and embraced.

Regards Tony

 

[Jim]

I see it is intrinsic to the covernant and to me what the Universal House of Justice does in the first instance, is to guide people to those passages and let them decide.

I am sure you would be aware of what the a Covernant asks of us. The key is what Muhammad came to demonstrate and that is true and lasting submission to God's Will and not our own will.

Would you like to explore those passages?

I will be off to Church soon with my wife.

Regards Tony

Tony, if you persist in publicly accusing me of violating the Covenant, after all that I’ve told you, then it looks to me like you are the one who is rebelling against a decision of the House of Justice, unless you think that I’m lying about it. Do you think that I’m lying about informing the House of Justice about what I’ve been doing, and not being counseled against it?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Tony, if you persist in publicly accusing me of violating the Covenant, after all that I’ve told you, then it looks to me like you are the one who is rebelling against a decision of the House of Justice, unless you think that I’m lying about it. Do you think that I’m lying about informing the House of Justice about what I’ve been doing, and not being counseled against it?

I have never said that even once.

My own thoughts are that I see you walk a very fine line. That line may be your personality. As I do not know you other than your RF posts, I can not comment but to say others do and you are a Baha'i in good standing.

So will we explore what is said about these issues, or will we not?

Regards Tony

 

[Jim]

I have never said that even once.

My own thoughts are that I see you walk a very fine line. That line may be your personality. As I do not know you other than your RF posts, I can not comment but to say others do and you are a Baha'i in good standing.

So will we explore what is said about these issues, or will we not?

Regards Tony

I’ve said things to you that I should not have said in public, and I apologize. I sent you a PM.

I won’t try to discuss any issues with you as long as you see what I’m saying as a violation of the Covenant. In fact, I think that before I would try to discuss any issues with you about Baha’i teachings, I would need to know that you’ve discussed it with some institution and satisfied yourself that I am not in any danger of violating the Covenant.

 

[Jim]

So will we explore what is said about these issues, or will we not?

I think now that I will not try to discuss any other issues with you, as long as you think that what I’m saying is contrary to the Covenant. We can discuss that if you want to, but as long as you think that, I won’t try to discuss any other issues with you.

 

[Jim]

So deliberately promoting views contrary to what the Baha’i writings actually teach goes against the spirit of the faith.

I see more clearly now what I want to say: I don’t think that it’s contrary to the Covenant to openly disagree with what the House of Justice says about Baha’i teachings. I think that it would be contrary to the Covenant to promote some practice that it has decided to prohibit, but simply disagreeing with what it says about Baha’i teachings is not contrary to the Covenant in my view. I think that it’s contrary to the Covenant to promote opposition to actions and decisions of the House of Justice, and contempt for what it’s calling for Baha’is to do, but simply disagreeing with what it says about Baha’i teachings is not contrary to the Covenant in my view. I think that it’s contrary to the Covenant to compete with the House of Justice, in opposition to its interests, in trying to influence what Baha’is do, but simply disagreeing with what it says about Baha’i teachings is not contrary to the Covenant in my view.

I think now that I won’t try to discuss Baha’i teachings with any Baha’is who have any doubts about my faithfulness to the Covenant. I think now that with you and Tony I would need you to tell me that you’ve consulted about it with some institution and satisfied yourselves that what I’m doing in Internet discussions is not even close to violating the Covenant.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Hi @Jim
Thanks for starting this thread and being willing to discuss some of your understandings and concerns. I haven’t had the time to properly consider your last posts. I just want to be clear that I have not considered you a Covenant breaker for one moment. Nor have I questioned the legitimacy of your membership with the Baha’i community. Nor have I said anything to question whether or not you are a Baha’i in good standing.

If you are uncomfortable continuing our conversation please feel free to take time out or not talk to me. However I’m happy to respond further.

I will share one of my concerns when one of the members of my community had her membership removed and a few members of my community switched allegiances away from the House of Justice. There were other in my community who became histrionic or aggravated the situation by referring to this individuals as Covenant breakers. There may even have been gossip and backbiting. It was unfair to clearly unhelpful to falsely label their fellow community members as covenant breakers.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I had a warm and friendly conversation with her when I first met her on Talisman9. We haven’t kept in touch, and I don’t know if she would even remember me, but I’ve always had friendly feelings for her and thought she felt the same. As I understand it, she and all the other people who were denouncing the House of Justice agree that it’s better for her purposes and Baha’u’llah’s for her not to be a member.

As I’ve stated I believe she is sincere in her beliefs as you are yours. I have no wish to make personal criticisms of anyone here.

 

[Jim]

If you are uncomfortable continuing our conversation please feel free to take time out or not talk to me.

Thank you. It isn’t that I feel uncomfortable. It’s that I don’t want to try to have any discussion with you about any Baha’i teachings if you think it’s contrary to the Covenant for me to promote my views about them. I’m not sure that you do feel that way, but I’m not sure that you don’t. You have raised the question of my faithfulness to the Covenant more than once in discussions between us, including at least once in this thread. I think now that the only way for me to be sure that you are not doubting my faithfulness would be if you consult about it with one of the institutions.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Thank you. It isn’t that I feel uncomfortable. It’s that I don’t want to try to have any discussion with you about any Baha’i teachings if you think it’s contrary to the Covenant for me to promote my views about them. I’m not sure that you do feel that way, but I’m not sure that you don’t. You have raised the question of my faithfulness to the Covenant more than once in discussions between us, including at least once in this thread. I think now that the only way for me to be sure that you are not doubting my faithfulness would be if you consult about it with one of the institutions.

I see no reason to consult with my ABM or Counsellor. Only God can truly know the heart of another and judge. Clearly we have different views about what the Baha’i writings teach. I’m good with having a break for a while.

 

[Jim]

I see no reason to consult with my ABM or Counsellor. Only God can truly know the heart of another and judge. Clearly we have different views about what the Baha’i writings teach. I’m good with having a break for a while.

You quoted this to me in another thread:

Nothing whatever can, in this Day, inflict a greater harm upon this Cause than dissension and strife, contention, estrangement and apathy, among the loved ones of God. Flee them, through the power of God and His sovereign aid, and strive ye to knit together the hearts of men, in His Name, the Unifier, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise.

I have felt some estrangement between you and me. That was one of my reasons for starting this thread. I accept responsibility for freeing myself from those feelings, with or without your help, and I leave the responsibility for your feelings to you. I think that some kind of discussion between us might help one or both of us, if we are doing it for that purpose. I’ll leave it to you if and when you want to continue trying.

 

[Dawnofhope]

You quoted this to me in another thread:

I have felt some estrangement between you and me. That was one of my reasons for starting this thread. I accept responsibility for freeing myself from those feelings, with or without your help, and I leave the responsibility for your feelings to you. I think that some kind of discussion between us might help one or both of us, if we are doing it for that purpose. I’ll leave it to you if and when you want to continue trying.

I briefly discussed you with my ABM. I didn’t want to mention you to her as I saw no need. I’m at a Baha’i summer school so I ended up sitting with her over dinner. I didn’t want to sit with her but she saw me and beckoned me over. I eventually felt compelled to say something to her about you though I know she has great responsibilities at present weighing on her shoulders. So I said “I have a minor protection issue I’m dealing with. Unfortunately this guy feels I need to talk to my ABM or counsellor. He doesn’t want to accept my advice”.

My ABM asked me how urgent it was and I explained its very low urgency. She replied that was good as she was really busy at the moment. Then she said, “but now I’m intrigued. You have to tell me what its about”. I explained this guy wants to know if its OK if he posts stuff on the internet that’s contrary to Baha’i Teachings and contradicts what the Universal House of Justice says. She asked what advice I’d given you. I explained about the verse from the House of Justice message about dissenting and how its a moral and intellectual contradiction if our goal is to build unity. Her advice. “No it isn’t OK to post stuff on the internet that opposes the institutions of the faith.” “He has an issue with the Covenant”. “He needs to listen to you”.

So Jim, I talked to my ABM. That’s what you requested. According to my ABM its not OK to post stuff on the internet that opposes the Baha’i Teachings. You have an issue with the Covenant. You need to listen to me.

There in lies a problem for both of us to ponder.