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

[Dawnofhope]

Hi @Jim ,

Good to see you are talking with us again.

@adrian009 @Tony Bristow-Stagg Now I’d like to discuss with you my views about homosexuality, before I discuss them any more with other people. Not for us to agree about it, but for me to practice responding to what you say, without falling into contention myself. It’s okay with me for you to say and do whatever you want to.

That’s fine by me. In fact I’m happy for you to make use of us in that manner.

I’m planning to post my view of what Baha’i scriptures say about homosexuality and gay issues, in a debate forum where anyone can post, and ask for people to post any arguments that they can find against my view. Here’s what I’ll be saying:

Obviously you don’t need anyone’s permission to do that. As you appreciate issues to do with LGBTQ+ are potentially very controversial and divisive. How would you anticipate members of this forum responding? My hope is your next thread on this topic is an enlightening discussion but bearing in mind the prevailing climate its a risky move. Let’s hope its a positive experience for you while also presenting the Baha’i Faith in a fair and balanced manner.

I did have another thought. It has been difficult for you to talk with us over the last few days. Now we’re talking about a very sensitive issue where we are likely to have different views. I’m concerned we may regress to being estranged again?

- I see Bahá’u’lláh ratifying the sexual prohibitions in Leviticus, but I don’t think that has anything to do with sexual orientation or any gay issues.

I’m not sure why you believe Bahá’u’lláh would be referring to verses in Leviticus. His followers were Muslim so if anything the Quran would be more relevant.

LGBT in Islam - Wikipedia

I agree somewhat with your statement about sexual orientation. I’m not sure what you mean by gay issues. Would you elaborate?

- I see Bahá’u’lláh promoting and regulating marriages between men and women, but I don’t think that has anything to do with sexual orientation or any gay issues.

All the Manifestations of God have promoted marriage between men and women. To explore this theme we could examine Baha’i writings. Bahá’u’lláh has said;

And when He desired to manifest grace and beneficence to men, and to set the world in order, He revealed observances and created laws; among them He established the law of marriage, made it as a fortress for well-being and salvation, and enjoined it upon us in that which was sent down out of the heaven of sanctity in His Most Holy Book.

God hath prescribed matrimony unto you...Enter into wedlock, O people, that ye may bring forth one who will make mention of Me amid My servants. This is My bidding unto you; hold fast to it as an assistance to yourselves.

A selection of extracts from the Bahá’í writings on family life and marriage

Do you think sexual orientation would have been assumed to be heterosexual amongst the majority of peoples? Once again I’d like to understand what you mean by gay issues?

- I see Bahá’u’lláh preferring not to discuss pederasty, in a context of permissible marriage partners, but I don’t think that has anything to do with sexual orientation or any gay issues.

I suppose in regards pederasty we are considering Bahá’u’lláh’s remark in the Kitab-I-Aqdas and why He mentioned it. I wonder if its relevant.

We shrink for very shame, from treating of the subject of boys. Fear ye the Merciful, O peoples of the world! Commit not that which if forbidden you in Our Holy Tablet, and be not of those who rove distractedly in the wilderness of their desires. (Kitab-i-Aqdas, paragraph 107)

Let’s also consider Bahá’u’lláh’s strongly worded verses here:

Ye are forbidden to commit adultery, sodomy and lechery. Avoid them, O concourse of the faithful. By the righteousness of God! Ye have been called into being to purge the world from the defilement of evil passions. This is what the Lord of all mankind hath enjoined upon you, could ye but perceive it. He who relateth himself to the All-Merciful and committeth satanic deeds, verily he is not of Me. Unto this beareth witness every atom, pebble, tree and fruit, and beyond them this ever-proclaiming, truthful and trustworthy Tongue. (From a previously untranslated Tablet)

These verses may not sit too comfortably with some of our more liberally minded participants on RF.

- I don’t see any prohibition in Baha’i scriptures against all homosexual relations. I don’t see any sexual prohibitions other than the ones in Leviticus.

Bahá’u’lláh’s Words above are very strong. Shoghi Effendis comments from letters written on his behalf (that have the same weight as the Guardians letters themselves) provides further clarity.

...Bahá'u'lláh has spoken very strongly against this shameful sexual aberration, as He has against adultery and immoral conduct in general. We must try and help the soul to overcome them. (25 October 1949) [3]

No matter how devoted and fine the love may be between people of the same sex, to let it find expression in sexual acts is wrong. To say that it is ideal is no excuse. Immorality of every sort is really forbidden by Bahá'u'lláh, and homosexual relationships He looks upon as such, besides being against nature

Homosexuality

- I don’t see any prohibition in Baha’i scriptures against a relationship between two women or two men called a “marriage” or legalized as one.”

Based on the above passages I disagree of course.

- I don’t think that the morality or healthfulness of any sexual activities has anything to do with anyone’s sex type, orientation or gender identity.

In some instances it may do:

To be afflicted this way is a great burden to a conscientious soul. But through the advice and help of doctors, through a strong and determined effort, and through prayer, a soul can overcome this handicap.

Thanks for talking to us again. I hope my forthright comments and quotes from the Baha’i writings and beloved Guardian won’t deter you from continuing our discussion.

 

[Jim]

My hope is your next thread on this topic is an enlightening discussion ...

I was thinking of starting a new thread, but now I think I’ll just continue in the thread about censorship.

Now we’re talking about a very sensitive issue where we are likely to have different views. I’m concerned we may regress to being estranged again?

I can’t be sure that it won’t go that way, but at this point I don’t see any reason to think that it will.

I’m not sure why you believe Bahá’u’lláh would be referring to verses in Leviticus.

I’m thinking that Jesus, Muhammad and Baha’u’llah maintained the prohibitions in Leviticus 18, without adding to them or spelling them out, simply referring to them with a few words used for different kinds of sexual acts.

I’m not sure what you mean by gay issues.

Issues that are raised by gays, which might mostly be about a double standard in the ways that people think about same-sex attractions and interactions and opposite-sex attractions and interactions. I don’t see any reason in the scriptures for that double standard.

All the Manifestations of God have promoted marriage between men and women.

I agree.

Do you think sexual orientation would have been assumed to be heterosexual amongst the majority of peoples?

I think that sexual orientation is a modern political invention. I saw it being invented less than 50 years ago.

Let’s also consider Bahá’u’lláh’s strongly worded verses here:

Ye are forbidden to commit adultery, sodomy and lechery.

I’m thinking that those are are different kinds of prohibited sexual acts, which are spelled out in Leviticus 18, regulating the use of penises, possibly for public health reasons and for people to see clearly which man is responsible for each child. I think that the purposes of the sexual prohibitions have been obscured and clouded over by modern superstitions about love, marriage, romance and sex.

 

[Jim]

@Tony Bristow-Stagg @adrian009 I think that it might help improve communication between us if we discuss the campaign of internal opposition.

Differing from attacks familiar in the past, it seeks to recast the entire Faith into a sociopolitical ideology alien to Bahá’u’lláh’s intent. In the place of the institutional authority established by His Covenant, it promotes a kind of interpretive authority which those behind it attribute to the views of persons technically trained in Middle East studies.

As passages in the enclosed reprint make clear, this campaign of internal opposition—while purporting to accept the legitimacy of the Guardianship and the Universal House of Justice as twin successors of Bahá’u’lláh and the Center of His Covenant—attempts to cast doubt on the nature and scope of the authority conferred on them in the Writings. When other Bahá’ís have pointed out that such arguments contradict explicit statements of the Master, persons behind the scheme have responded by calling into question the soundness of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s own judgment and perspective. Gradually, these arguments have exposed the view of those involved that Bahá’u’lláh Himself was not the voice of God to our age but merely a particularly enlightened moral philosopher, one whose primary concern was to reform existing society.

What I’m doing might look like that to you, but none of that is what I’m thinking or what I‘m trying to do, and I’m not trying to open up a space for people to do that. I’m opposed to all that.

 

[Dawnofhope]

@Tony Bristow-Stagg @adrian009 I think that it might help improve communication between us if we discuss the campaign of internal opposition.


What I’m doing might look like that to you, but none of that is what I’m thinking or what I‘m trying to do, and I’m not trying to open up a space for people to do that. I’m opposed to all that.

How do you see your purpose on this forum @Jim ?

 

[Jim]

I’ll repeat what I’m planning to say in the thread about Baha’i censorship.

- I see Bahá’u’lláh ratifying the sexual prohibitions in Leviticus, but I don’t think that has anything to do with sexual orientation or any gay issues.
- I see Bahá’u’lláh promoting and regulating marriages between men and women, but I don’t think that has anything to do with sexual orientation or any gay issues.
- I don’t see any possibility ever for any marriage between two women or two men to be certified as a Baha’i marriage, but I don’t think that has anything to do with sexual orientation or any gay issues.
- I see Bahá’u’lláh preferring not to discuss pederasty, in a context of permissible marriage partners, but I don’t think that has anything to do with sexual orientation or any gay issues.
- I don’t see any prohibition in Baha’i scriptures against all homosexual relations. I don’t see any sexual prohibitions other than the ones in Leviticus.
- I don’t see any prohibition in Baha’i scriptures against a relationship between two women or two men called a “marriage” or legalized as one.
- I don’t think that the morality or healthfulness of any sexual activities has anything to do with anyone’s sex type, orientation or gender identity.

I don’t think that I’m contradicting Bahá’u’lláh or any either one of His two authorized interpreters, no matter how many Baha’is and how many of their critics think that I am. Even if all the Baha’is and all the other people in the world, including all the Counselors and all nine members of the House of the House of Justice, thought that I’m contradicting Bahá’u’lláh, that would not be a reason for me to think that I’m contradicting Bahá’u’lláh. Beyond that, even if I myself thought that I was contradicting Bahá’u’lláh Himself, that would not be a reason for me to think that I’m opposing the House of Justice in any way that violates the Covenant.

If ever the House of Justice made a decision for Baha’is not to post the views that I’ve been posting, in Internet discussions, I would stop. If they advised me privately to stop, I would stop, and I would not post that advice to me on the Internet,

 

[Jim]

How do you see your purpose on this forum Jim?

That was a good test of my capacity to avoid falling into contention with people around me. Thank you.

 

[Dawnofhope]

That was a good test of my capacity to avoid falling into contention with people around me. Thank you.

You’re welcome. As repeated said I fully acknowledge you are a Baha’i in good standing. Although you have a somewhat different take on the Baha’i Faith I accept that. Although I have at times some concerns about some those differences they are not anything I would take to the institutions of faith and the institutions of the faith in would be extremely unlikely to have any interest intervention. If you say you’re not part of any internal opposition that’s fine by me. If you want to discuss further why you are here or not, all good. I’m just happy we’re talking again. I never feel estranged from you but clearly you do feel from Tony and I at times. It is what it is and I believe in keeping lines of communication open.

 

[Jim]

@Tony Bristow-Stagg @adrian009 I’ll start this post with some things that I an not thinking, and not trying to do. I am not approving any faction opposed to the Universal House of Justice seated on Mount Carmel in Haifa, Israel, and I’m not trying to open up a space for anyone to promote any of those factions.

I want to discuss an example of how all the Baha’is in the world can be wrong in their understanding of what looks clear and obvious to them in Baha’i writings: Guardians after Shoghi Effendi. Nothing could be more clear and obvious than the the promise in the writings of Abdu’l-Baha of a line of Guardians following Shoghi Effendi. Nothing could be more clear and obvious than the indisputable need for that according to Shoghi Effendi. All of that was clear, obvious and indisputable, one of the most fundamental teachings of the Baha’i Faith, in the minds of all the Baha’is of the world including all the Hands of the Cause, until Shoghi Effendi died without appointing any Guardian. Then it turned out that none of that was true.

Please discuss.

 

[Jim]

My point is that none of us can be sure of anything that we think we know. What I think we can be sure of is that if we trust Bahá’u’lláh and the House of Justice and try to do what they say, we will be helping to improve the lives of all people everywhere including ourselves, and helping to improve the world for future generations, more than we would otherwise, and with less harm.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

@Tony Bristow-Stagg @adrian009 I’ll start this post with some things that I an not thinking, and not trying to do. I am not approving any faction opposed to the Universal House of Justice seated on Mount Carmel in Haifa, Israel, and I’m not trying to open up a space for anyone to promote any of those factions.

I want to discuss an example of how all the Baha’is in the world can be wrong in their understanding of what looks clear and obvious to them in Baha’i writings: Guardians after Shoghi Effendi. Nothing could be more clear and obvious than the the promise in the writings of Abdu’l-Baha of a line of Guardians following Shoghi Effendi. Nothing could be more clear and obvious than the indisputable need for that according to Shoghi Effendi. All of that was clear, obvious and indisputable, one of the most fundamental teachings of the Baha’i Faith, in the minds of all the Baha’is of the world including all the Hands of the Cause, until Shoghi Effendi died without appointing any Guardian. Then it turned out that none of that was true.

Please discuss.

Jim, There is much on that topic and I have found peace it what I have read upon it. That specific issue has much advice given by the Universal House of Justice.

The first and foremost balance to this is God doeth as God so Willeth.

As we know, Shoghi Effendi had nothing to offer in a will and we can not know why God chose to take Shoghi Effendi without a will, but there has been thoughts offered.

1st, there was no person alive that could be appointed as the Guardian and no possibility to appoint another.
2nd, Shoghi had no earthly possessions to give in a will and,
Lastly His declaration of Faith, another purpose of the will, exists in all His Writings.

So the Faith has and will only have One Guardian, it was and now is Shoghi Effendi. That institute of the Guardian remains and all that Shoghi Effendi has written, has guided the past and the present Universal House of Justice and will guide the future Universal House of Justices.

From there, it can be offered, that it is an important topic for any Baha'i to study and deepen in.

What would you like to address, maybe our ability to accept what God has willed? I can see why you would have an issue, if you do not beleive that there is a God, that doeth as God so Willeth.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

My point is that none of us can be sure of anything that we think we know. What I think we can be sure of is that if we trust Bahá’u’lláh and the House of Justice and try to do what they say, we will be helping to improve the lives of all people everywhere including ourselves, and helping to improve the world for future generations, more than we would otherwise, and with less harm.

This OP addresses that Jim.

Absolute Certainty

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

My point is that none of us can be sure of anything that we think we know. What I think we can be sure of is that if we trust Bahá’u’lláh and the House of Justice and try to do what they say, we will be helping to improve the lives of all people everywhere including ourselves, and helping to improve the world for future generations, more than we would otherwise, and with less harm.

I agree with @Tony Bristow-Stagg regarding comments about why a future Guardian wasn’t appointed and couldn’t be appointed.

Further, although a line of Guardians was envisaged by ‘Abdu’l-Baha in his will and testament there was nowhere in the writings where it is indicated this line would continue forever. In fact the scenario where it would end was clearly envisaged by Bahá’u’lláh.

One of the most striking passages which envisage the possibility of such a break in the line of Guardians is in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas itself:

The endowments dedicated to charity revert to God, the Revealer of Signs. No one has the right to lay hold on them without leave from the Dawning-Place of Revelation. After Him the decision rests with the Aghṣán [Branches], and after them with the House of Justice—should it be established in the world by then—so that they may use these endowments for the benefit of the Sites exalted in this Cause, and for that which they have been commanded by God, the Almighty, the All-Powerful. Otherwise the endowments should be referred to the people of Bahá, who speak not without His leave and who pass no judgment but in accordance with that which God has ordained in this Tablet, they who are the champions of victory betwixt heaven and earth, so that they may spend them on that which has been decreed in the Holy Book by God, the Mighty, the Bountiful.

7 December 1969 – [To an individual] | Bahá’í Reference Library

The letter from our Universal House of Justice is important in the explanations provided on the theme as to why Shoghi Effendi couldn’t appoint a future Guardian.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I agree with @Tony Bristow-Stagg regarding comments about why a future Guardian wasn’t appointed and couldn’t be appointed.

Further, although a line of Guardians was envisaged by ‘Abdu’l-Baha in his will and testament there was nowhere in the writings where it is indicated this line would continue forever. In fact the scenario where it would end was clearly envisaged by Bahá’u’lláh.

One of the most striking passages which envisage the possibility of such a break in the line of Guardians is in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas itself:

The endowments dedicated to charity revert to God, the Revealer of Signs. No one has the right to lay hold on them without leave from the Dawning-Place of Revelation. After Him the decision rests with the Aghṣán [Branches], and after them with the House of Justice—should it be established in the world by then—so that they may use these endowments for the benefit of the Sites exalted in this Cause, and for that which they have been commanded by God, the Almighty, the All-Powerful. Otherwise the endowments should be referred to the people of Bahá, who speak not without His leave and who pass no judgment but in accordance with that which God has ordained in this Tablet, they who are the champions of victory betwixt heaven and earth, so that they may spend them on that which has been decreed in the Holy Book by God, the Mighty, the Bountiful.

7 December 1969 – [To an individual] | Bahá’í Reference Library

The letter from our Universal House of Justice is important in the explanations provided on the theme as to why Shoghi Effendi couldn’t appoint a future Guardian.

That passage also gives the bounty to consider the wisdom and foresight of Shoghi Effendi, a foresight that maybe He was not going to be able to appoint a Guardian, thus the wisdom of calling the Baha'i to disperse, teach and build the foundations of the Administrative order that would make it possible to elect the Universal House of Justice according to the requirements set, that would ensure the divine guidance.

We really have not fully understood how pivotal was the Guardian to the success of a Faith that remains unbroken by diversive thought.

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

That passage also gives the bounty to consider the wisdom and foresight of Shoghi Effendi, a foresight that maybe He was not going to be able to appoint a Guardian, thus the wisdom of calling the Baha'i to disperse, teach and build the foundations of the Administrative order that would make it possible to elect the Universal House of Justice according to the requirements set, that would ensure the divine guidance.

We really have not fully understood how pivotal was the Guardian to the success of a Faith that remains unbroken by diversive thought.

Regards Tony

The whole matter of why another Guardian wasn’t appointed seems clear enough to me as it does to you. However it was a test for Baha’is and remains a somewhat different test to some Baha’is now. The major test after Shoghi Effendi passed away was the declaration of Mason Remey to be Shoghi Effendi’s successor and the second guardian. He had no authority to do so and no doubt being appointed the chairman of the council of Hands of the Cause based in Haifa contributed to his ill fated decision.

The doubts some Baha’is have over this issue today is not covenant breaking of course because there is no belief or attempt to support anyone’s claim to be Guardian. If I’m correct the belief @Jim might have is something went wrong that wasn’t intended and it all looks very human rather than a Divinely orchestrated plan.

The concerns and arguments are along the lines of:

1/ Shoghi Effendi should have written a will and testament. He didn’t.

2/ Shoghi Effendi envisaged the Guardian sitting on the Universal House of Justice as its permanent head. That didn’t happen.

3/ There were important roles the Guardian had that were essential to the Universal House of Justice’s functions. How can the Universal House of Justice function properly without a living Guardian?

4/ A succession of Guardians was clearly envisaged. One Guardian is hardly a line.

Then to add insult to injury when Baha’is quite rightly ask questions, ‘fundamentalist’ Baha’is such as ourselves such talking about the Covenant and internal opposition to the faith shutting down any reasonable and amicable conversation.

I don’t know what Jim is thinking but wonder if its along these lines.

 

[Jim]

@Tony Bristow-Stagg @adrian009 Both of you have completely missed my point. I have no problem at all with Shoghi Effendi not appointing a Guardian.

 

[Dawnofhope]

@Tony Bristow-Stagg @adrian009 Both of you have completely missed my point. I have no problem at all with Shoghi Effendi not appointing a Guardian.

So what is your point?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

My point is that none of us can be sure of anything that we think we know. What I think we can be sure of is that if we trust Bahá’u’lláh and the House of Justice and try to do what they say, we will be helping to improve the lives of all people everywhere including ourselves, and helping to improve the world for future generations, more than we would otherwise, and with less harm.

@Tony Bristow-Stagg @adrian009 Both of you have completely missed my point. I have no problem at all with Shoghi Effendi not appointing a Guardian.

Maybe this type of advice is to where you are directing thought?

"...The authority to direct the affairs of the Faith locally, nationally and internationally, is divinely conferred on elected institutions. However, the power to accomplish the tasks of the community resides primarily in the mass of the believers. The authority of the institutions is an irrevocable necessity for the progress of humanity; its exercise is an art to be mastered. The power of action in the believers is unlocked at the level of individual initiative and surges at the level of collective volition. In its potential, this mass power, this mix of individual potentialities, exists in a malleable form susceptible to the multiple reactions of individuals to the sundry influences at work in the world. To realize its highest purpose, this power needs to express itself through orderly avenues of activity. Even though individuals may strive to be guided in their actions by their personal understanding of the Divine Texts, and much can be accomplished thereby, such actions, untempered by the overall direction provided by authorized institutions, are incapable of attaining the thrust necessary for the unencumbered advancement of civilization...."

19 May 1994 – The National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States | Bahá’í Reference Library

Regards Tony

 

[Jim]

Maybe this type of advice is to where you are directing thought?

"...The authority to direct the affairs of the Faith locally, nationally and internationally, is divinely conferred on elected institutions. However, the power to accomplish the tasks of the community resides primarily in the mass of the believers. The authority of the institutions is an irrevocable necessity for the progress of humanity; its exercise is an art to be mastered. The power of action in the believers is unlocked at the level of individual initiative and surges at the level of collective volition. In its potential, this mass power, this mix of individual potentialities, exists in a malleable form susceptible to the multiple reactions of individuals to the sundry influences at work in the world. To realize its highest purpose, this power needs to express itself through orderly avenues of activity. Even though individuals may strive to be guided in their actions by their personal understanding of the Divine Texts, and much can be accomplished thereby, such actions, untempered by the overall direction provided by authorized institutions, are incapable of attaining the thrust necessary for the unencumbered advancement of civilization...."

19 May 1994 – The National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States | Bahá’í Reference Library

Regards Tony

That doesn’t say everything that I was thinking, but it’s better than what I was thinking, so I want to leave it at that for now.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That doesn’t say everything that I was thinking, but it’s better than what I was thinking, so I want to leave it at that for now.

Jim, if you do not mind, a question. Have you experienced life as a remote Baha'i?

I offer more thought. Coming from very active and larger communities, into a world of no Baha'i, or any organized activities, is in itself an event that changes ones relative understanding of a world embracing Faith.

In Australia and most likely all around the world, cities have attracted many of the believers and the world is much like a lumpy porridge. We have pioneering places in Australia that can not attract any Baha'is and they really are paradise places, great climate great facilities and great lifestyle. What about when you go even wide though. Well then you find a dot here and a dot there, mostly with no contact and little prospect for there to be some. My wife and I are dots, that even today, have no line of priority joining it to any large cluster. We are part of one, but not a priority area and anyway, where are they but over a 1000 of kilometers away? The closest Baha'i we have are 500km away, there is a group of 3 in a mining town called Mt Isa to our south. To the East it is 600km and that is to a struggling to keep numbers always Baha'i Assembly, not part of our area, go figure that, as they are the closest and would most likely be able to do something to help.

I say that only to indicate why I see the world is not embracing the required change on a rapidity that was required. When my wife and I came here firstly in the late 1980's (we left 1997 and returned 2016), it was actually a lot easier for a few years, as the support kept arriving, then by the 90's it slowly fizzled out to none at all.

Regards Tony

 

[Jim]

Then to add insult to injury when Baha’is quite rightly ask questions, ‘fundamentalist’ Baha’is such as ourselves such talking about the Covenant and internal opposition to the faith shutting down any reasonable and amicable conversation.

I’m sorry for my unfriendliness in saying that you completely missed my point. I could have said it in a more friendly way, like “That was not my point.” Shutting down conversations has been my point in some of my posts, but not this time. I don’t have any problems with Shoghi Effendi not appointing a Guardian and my reason for discussing it was not about the issue of shutting down conversations.

I like very much what Tony posted, and I would like to let that sink in for a while, before I say any more about what I was thinking.