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

[Jim]

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.

In accordance with our guidance, I am telling you that your insistence on your views as correct and mine as erroneous looks to me like it’s contrary to the Covenant. You are not an authorized interpreter of the writings.

 

[Jim]

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.

I think that your insistence on your views alone as the correct ones and true teachings of the Faith, is contrary to the Covenant. It looks to me like you’re obscuring the difference between individual and authoritative interpretations. I’m studying a document about that now, and I might post some parts of it here.

What is the difference between individual and authoritative interpretation?

 

[Jim]

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.

If your story is true, and if the ABM was acting in her capacity as an ABM and not just giving her personal opinion about the story you told her, then I think she was wrong to say what she did without any investigation and without discussing it with a counselor. Also it seems to me that if you actually did work with an ABM in deepenings about the Covenant, then you would know better than to do what you’ve been doing in your posts to me and about me.

 

[Jim]

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.

I see you saying and doing things that appear to me to be contrary to the Covenant.

Thus, if any participant in an email discussion feels that a view put forward appears to contradict or undermine the provisions of the Covenant, he should be free to say so, explaining candidly and courteously why he feels as he does. The person who made the initial statement will then be able to re-evaluate his opinion and, if he still believes it to be valid, he should be able to explain why it is not contrary to either the letter or the spirit of the Covenant. The participants in such a discussion should avoid disputation and, if they are unable to resolve an issue, they should refer the point to the Universal House of Justice since, in accordance with the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, 'By this body all the difficult problems are to be resolved ...'and 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.'In this way the Covenant can illuminate and temper the discourse and make it fruitful.

Internet, the World Wide Web, and Electronic Discussion Lists:
A perspective from the Bahá'í Writings

You appear to me to be saying that disagreeing with your view of Baha’i teachings, and/or what you think the House of Justice says about them, is the same as promoting views contrary to Baha’i teachings, and that it’s the kind of opposition to the institutions that violates the Covenant. That in itself looks to me like it’s contrary to the Covenant. That makes you and the House of Justice authoritative interpreters of Baha’i scriptures, which it is not and you are not. Calling it “opposition to the institutions” if a person disagrees with what the House of Justice says about Baha’i teachings does the same thing. It makes the House of Justice an authoritative interpreter of Baha’i scriptures, which it is not and which it has never claimed to be.

 

[Jim]

From the compilation that I linked to earlier:

In fact such individual interpretation is considered the fruit of man’s rational power and conducive to a better understanding of the teachings, provided that no disputes or arguments arise among the friends and the individual himself understands and makes it clear that his views are merely his own.

If one person is calling his views the true teachings of the Faith, and the other person’s views “contrary to the actual teachings” and “opposition to the institutions,” then It looks to me like he is putting himself in the position of an authoritative interpreter of Baha’i scriptures, which I think is contrary to the Covenant. However that may be, it certainly does not facilitate fruitful discussion about any disagreements between them.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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.

Personally Jim I see it is the way you choose to post. To me you like taking the conversation right to the line of the covenant, then offering maybe it is or maybe it is not crossing the line, maybe being the intentional provocation in the discussion.

So we can look at situations that the Universal House of Justice have commented on examples like as to what you have offered.

'...In general, the strategy being pursued has been to avoid direct attacks on the Faith’s Central Figures. The effort, rather, has been to sow the seeds of doubt among believers about the Faith’s teachings and institutions by appealing to unexamined prejudices that Bahá’ís may have unconsciously absorbed from non-Bahá’í society. In defiance of the clear interpretation of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and the Guardian, for example, Bahá’u’lláh’s limiting of membership on the Universal House of Justice to men is misrepresented as merely a “temporary measure” subject to eventual revision if sufficient pressure is brought to bear. Similarly, Shoghi Effendi’s explanation of Bahá’u’lláh’s vision of the future Bahá’í World Commonwealth that will unite spiritual and civil authority is dismissed in favor of the assertion that the modern political concept of “separation of church and state” is somehow one that Bahá’u’lláh intended as a basic principle of the World Order He has founded. Particularly subtle is an attempt to suggest that the Mashriqu’l-Adhkár should evolve into a seat of quasi-doctrinal authority, parallel to and essentially independent of the Local House of Justice, which would permit various interests to insinuate themselves into the direction of the life processes of the Cause...." Link to some documents keyword Internet - Search – Authoritative Writings and Guidance | Bahá’í Reference Library

The same can be offered for Issues you have raised in threads, which in the teachings have a clear meaning, that is not disputed by the majority of the Baha'i population. One being that of clarity in the writings to Gay relationships, another the giving of sanctions to Baha'i that choose to cross the line even after consultations with institute members and elected bodies.

Personally I am happy to discuss, but I also see I will choose an out, if you want to push that line. In Australia our early days of learning were to become strong in the Covenant, as we had covernant breakers move to and settle in Australia, one was in the town I became a Baha'i. Thus I see no grey areas, but the one we make for ourselves.

So discuss we can, you are aware of how both Adrian and I view the posts, I also know other Baha'i here feel much the same. So how do you want to continue, do you want to continue?

So my summary - You are a Baha'i in Good Standing, you have views that push the line of what was offered by Baha'u'llah and the line of the Covenant. This is seen by more than the Baha'i on RF, as posters have also questioned your interpretations. It is not for me to judge you or your motive, but I have full rights and prerogative to give my views on what you offer, as you do to my own views.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I see you saying and doing things that appear to me to be contrary to the Covenant.

I see Adrian pursued an option that you suggested He take, if He wished to still converse with you on the topic.

I also see, as earlier offered, this is not a topic for and open world wide web discussion. I see putting this on an open forum, is already placing it in a place where one wants their view to gain some type of foothold in a wider embrace.

Not sure how to take this any further Jim. Current popular beliefs on certain subjects, that conflict with some aspects of the teachings of the Baha'i Faith, can not be magically inserted back into the discussion, to change what it currently offered in the Writings up to the time of Shoghi Effendi and now also have advice given by the Universal House of Justice.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

From the compilation that I linked to earlier:

If one person is calling his views the true teachings of the Faith, and the other person’s views “contrary to the actual teachings” and “opposition to the institutions,” then It looks to me like he is putting himself in the position of an authoritative interpreter of Baha’i scriptures, which I think is contrary to the Covenant. However that may be, it certainly does not facilitate fruitful discussion about any disagreements between them.

Many passages speak for themselves Jim. There is no interpretation beyond what they are saying in clear English.

Regards Tony

 

[Jim]

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.

It seems unlikely to me that the conversation went exactly as you say it did, but I’ll respond to your story as you’ve told it. First of all, what you told the ABM about me was false. Second, if the ABM decided, just from hearing your story, without any investigation and without discussing it with a counselor, that I have a problem with the Covenant, and that I should listen to you, then I think that she’s just wrong. Third, I don’t think that I’m posting anything that opposes the Baha’i teachings or the institutions of the Faith, and I think that it’s contrary to the Covenant for you to persist in saying that I am, without any authority from any institution. Fourth, even if I were promoting views contrary to the Baha’i teachings, that would not be a reason to say that I’m opposing the institutions.

Don’t forget that we are having this conversation in public.

 

[Jim]

Many passages speak for themselves Jim. There is no interpretation beyond what they are saying in clear English.

Regards Tony

The only reason that I’m still talking to you and Adrian is because I think that you are members of the Baha’i Faith. Otherwise I would have stopped responding to your posts long ago. I don’t see any hope for communication between us as long as you keep clinging to your delusions about me. As it is, I don’t know what else to say for now.

 

[Jim]

Many passages speak for themselves Jim. There is no interpretation beyond what they are saying in clear English.

Regards Tony

After my last post I had a new idea about possible reasons for you to be clinging to your delusions about me, and I’m feeling a little more sympathetic again. I still don’t know what else to say for now.

 

[Dawnofhope]

@Jim
You seem to have read a great deal into my words that are not there.

You asked me to do something and I did as you requested. I just reported the response from my ABM.

I’m just an ordinary guy making my way in the world. I have no authority here and assistants don’t have authority regardless.

The Institution of the Counsellors | What Bahá’ís Believe

The Institution of the Counsellors

 

[Dawnofhope]

It seems unlikely to me that the conversation went exactly as you say it did, but I’ll respond to your story as you’ve told it. First of all, what you told the ABM about me was false. Second, if the ABM decided, just from hearing your story, without any investigation and without discussing it with a counselor, that I have a problem with the Covenant, and that I should listen to you, then I think that she’s just wrong. Third, I don’t think that I’m posting anything that opposes the Baha’i teachings or the institutions of the Faith, and I think that it’s contrary to the Covenant for you to persist in saying that I am, without any authority from any institution. Fourth, even if I were promoting views contrary to the Baha’i teachings, that would not be a reason to say that I’m opposing the institutions.

Don’t forget that we are having this conversation in public.

The details are not so important here because the issues are so clear. However its framed, a Baha’i loyal to the Covenant would never deliberately make statements visible to the whole world that contradict or oppose either the fundamental Baha’i Teachings or the House of Justice. A Baha’i loyal to the Covenant would at least listen and consider the guidance from the institution of the Counsellors. Of course members of our institution have no authority as Assemblies do, but they are nonetheless an essential part of the world order of Bahá’u’lláh. Even a lowly assistant is chosen and appointed by ABMs in consultation with their counsellor.

We agree no Baha’i on this forum has any authority over anyone else here on this forum. No one to my knowledge has been appointed by either the elected or appointed arm of our administration to oversee who says what on RF.

You made a request of me and I reluctantly obliged. As discussed earlier in this thread, the best we can hope for is to agree to disagree. I had hoped we could have done that amicably. I genuinely wish you well and have no ill will towards you. As we both know Bahá’u’lláh has said conflict and contention are strictly forbidden.

 

[Jim]

You made a request of me and I reluctantly obliged.

False. It was not a request. It was a suggestion about a way to open up communication between us, and you did not do as I suggested.

 

[Jim]

As discussed earlier in this thread, the best we can hope for is to agree to disagree.

I think that we could do much better than that.

I had hoped we could have done that amicably. I genuinely wish you well and have no ill will towards you. As we both know Bahá’u’lláh has said conflict and contention are strictly forbidden.

Maybe I’ve misunderstood you.

... a Baha’i loyal to the Covenant would never deliberately make statements visible to the whole world that contradict or oppose either the fundamental Baha’i Teachings or the House of Justice. A Baha’i loyal to the Covenant would at least listen and consider the guidance from the institution of the Counsellors.

You said in a post to me that I have a problem with the Covenant, and now it looks to me like you’re insinuating that what you’re saying has been authorized by a Baha’i institution. If you want to agree to disagree, amicably, I see two possibilities for you.
- If you actually do think that I’m saying or doing things contrary to the Covenant, you can contact a Counselor or write to the House of Justice and ask about me by name. That’s what I did when I wanted to know about the status of some people who were denouncing the House of Justice in Internet discussions.
- If you do not think that I’m saying or doing anything contrary to the Covenant, you can say so, publicly, clearly and explicitly, like this for example: “Jim, I do not think that you are saying or doing anything contrary to the Covenant.”

 

[Jim]

As discussed earlier in this thread, the best we can hope for is to agree to disagree.

I think that we could do much better than that, if you would ever want to.

As discussed earlier in this thread, the best we can hope for is to agree to disagree.I had hoped we could have done that amicably. I genuinely wish you well and have no ill will towards you. As we both know Bahá’u’lláh has said conflict and contention are strictly forbidden.

I’m agreeing to disagree, amicably. For me that would mean that I post my views and you post yours, without you stigmatizing mine as being contrary to the Covenant. I’m even agreeing for you to do that if that’s what you sincerely think, but that doesn’t look amicable to me, and it doesn’t look to me like you agreeing to disagree, especially when you try to make it look like it’s coming from a Baha’i institution.

 

[Jim]

I briefly discussed you with my ABM. ... 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”.

... 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.

A Baha’i loyal to the Covenant would at least listen and consider the guidance from the institution of the Counsellors. Of course members of our institution have no authority as Assemblies do, but they are nonetheless an essential part of the world order of Bahá’u’lláh. Even a lowly assistant is chosen and appointed by ABMs in consultation with their counsellor.

Some people reading that might think that you have been authorized by a Baha’i institution to tell me that I have an issue with the Covenant, and that it’s a violation of some Baha’i rule for me to publicly disagree with anything that you and some other people think is contrary to Baha’i teachings and what the House of Justice has said about them. Have you been authorized by a Bahai institution to tell me that I have an issue with the Covenant, and that it’s contrary to the Covenant for me to publicly disagree with anything that you and some other people think is contrary to Baha’i teachings and what the House of Justice has said about them?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Some people reading that might think that you have been authorized by a Baha’i institution to tell me that I have an issue with the Covenant, and that it’s a violation of some Baha’i rule for me to publicly disagree with anything that you and some other people think is contrary to Baha’i teachings and what the House of Justice has said about them. Have you been authorized by a Bahai institution to tell me that I have an issue with the Covenant, and that it’s contrary to the Covenant for me to publicly disagree with anything that you and some other people think is contrary to Baha’i teachings and what the House of Justice has said about them?

As repeatedly stated none of us have any authority but the Baha’i Writings and twin successors of 'Abdu'l-Bahá do.

The Greater and lesser Covenants as portrayed in the Baha’i writings are very clear. In its essence it is a relationship between man and God. God guides man and asks us to follow that guidance. In turn if we obey and follow that guidance we are blessed. We we turn away from that guidance we deprive ourselves of those blessings. An essential part of that guidance is the recognition of His Manifestations and to follow their Teachings.

The Baha’i Covenant is unique amongst the Abrahamic Covenants in that authority within clearly defined spheres is bestowed on Abdu’l-Baha and then the twin institutions of the Guardian and Universal House of Justice.

The Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá makes clear:

"It is incumbent upon these members (of the Universal House of Justice) to gather in a certain place and deliberate upon all problems which have caused difference, questions that are obscure and matters that are not expressly recorded in the Book. Whatsoever they decide has the same effect as the Text itself. “ (part 2, paragraph 9)

The Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá states emphatically:

“To none is given the right to put forth his own opinion or express his particular conviction. All must seek guidance and turn unto the Center of the Cause and the House of Justice. And he that turneth unto whatsoever else is indeed in grievous error."

Further the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá
concludes in regards the Guardianship of Shoghi Effendi.

"O ye the faithful loved ones of 'Abdu'l-Bahá. It is incumbent upon you to take the greatest care of Shoghi Effendi, the twig that hath branched-from, and the fruit given forth by the two hallowed and Divine Lote Trees, that no dust of despondency may stain his radiant nature, that day by day he may wax greater in happiness, in joy and spirituality, and may grow to become even as a fruitful tree."

“For he is, after 'Abdu'l-Bahá, the guardian of the Cause of God; the Afnan, the Hands of the Cause and the beloved of the Lord must obey him and turn unto him. He that obeyeth him not, hath not obeyed God; he that turneth away from him, hath turned away from God and he that denieth him hath denied the True One. Beware lest anyone falsely interpret these words, and like unto them that have broken the Covenant after the Day of Ascension (of Bahá'u'lláh) advance a pretext, raise the standard of revolt, wax stubborn and open wide the door of false interpretation. To none is given the right to put forth his own opinion or express his particular convictions. All must seek guidance and turn unto the Centre of the Cause and the House of Justice. And he that turneth unto whatsoever else is indeed in grievous error."

What could be clearer?

 

[Jim]

As repeatedly stated none of us have any authority but the Baha’i Writings and twin successors of 'Abdu'l-Bahá do.

The Greater and lesser Covenants as portrayed in the Baha’i writings are very clear. In its essence it is a relationship between man and God. God guides man and asks us to follow that guidance. In turn if we obey and follow that guidance we are blessed. We we turn away from that guidance we deprive ourselves of those blessings. An essential part of that guidance is the recognition of His Manifestations and to follow their Teachings.

The Baha’i Covenant is unique amongst the Abrahamic Covenants in that authority within clearly defined spheres is bestowed on Abdu’l-Baha and then the twin institutions of the Guardian and Universal House of Justice.

The Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá makes clear:

"It is incumbent upon these members (of the Universal House of Justice) to gather in a certain place and deliberate upon all problems which have caused difference, questions that are obscure and matters that are not expressly recorded in the Book. Whatsoever they decide has the same effect as the Text itself. “ (part 2, paragraph 9)

The Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá states emphatically:

“To none is given the right to put forth his own opinion or express his particular conviction. All must seek guidance and turn unto the Center of the Cause and the House of Justice. And he that turneth unto whatsoever else is indeed in grievous error."

Further the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá
concludes in regards the Guardianship of Shoghi Effendi.

"O ye the faithful loved ones of 'Abdu'l-Bahá. It is incumbent upon you to take the greatest care of Shoghi Effendi, the twig that hath branched-from, and the fruit given forth by the two hallowed and Divine Lote Trees, that no dust of despondency may stain his radiant nature, that day by day he may wax greater in happiness, in joy and spirituality, and may grow to become even as a fruitful tree."

“For he is, after 'Abdu'l-Bahá, the guardian of the Cause of God; the Afnan, the Hands of the Cause and the beloved of the Lord must obey him and turn unto him. He that obeyeth him not, hath not obeyed God; he that turneth away from him, hath turned away from God and he that denieth him hath denied the True One. Beware lest anyone falsely interpret these words, and like unto them that have broken the Covenant after the Day of Ascension (of Bahá'u'lláh) advance a pretext, raise the standard of revolt, wax stubborn and open wide the door of false interpretation. To none is given the right to put forth his own opinion or express his particular convictions. All must seek guidance and turn unto the Centre of the Cause and the House of Justice. And he that turneth unto whatsoever else is indeed in grievous error."

What could be clearer?

I see you continually responding to my posts with posts about opposing Baha’u’llah, His interpreters and the House of Justice. It isn’t clear to me if you are accusing me of doing that, but if you are, then I think it would be better for Baha’u’llah’s purposes and for everyone here if you ask a Counselor or the House of Justice about me, by name, before you continue accusing me of violating the Covenant.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I see you continually responding to my posts with posts about opposing Baha’u’llah, His interpreters and the House of Justice. It isn’t clear to me if you are accusing me of doing that, but if you are, then I think it would be better for Baha’u’llah’s purposes and for everyone here if you ask a Counselor or the House of Justice about me, by name, before you continue accusing me of violating the Covenant.

If you read my last post to you I have simply provided an outline of the Covenant of Bahá’u’lláh from a Baha’i perspective. I didn’t mention anything about you at all so why take it personally? Since the subject of the Covenant has been raised between us, I thought a more productive avenue of discussion might be to share our different understandings of the Covenant. It occurred to me that as you referred previously to a different Baha’i Faith I wondered if there may be different Covenant. Is that correct or is the Covenant I’ve described the Covenant you believe in too?