SOME UN-ANSWERED QUESTIONS

Share/Save/Bookmark

SOME UN-ANSWERED QUESTIONS
by Orthodox Bahai
10-Mar-2009
 

Bahá'ís the world over are very familiar with the book Some Answered Questions, which provides a series of questions that 'Abdu'l-Bahá succinctly answers with an unequivocal authority and rightness, and the volume is therefore one of the Bahá'í Faith's most cherished works. Some Answered Questions provides for inquirers Bahá'í responses to questions about God, His Manifestations, and the "origin, powers and conditions of man," as well as dealing with such topics as the nonexistence of evil, reincarnation, and the methods of acquiring knowledge. Unfortunately, the mass of Bahá'ís around the world do not have a similarly authoritative book for a series of other questions that most of them either refuse to face or are totally unaware that such questions have gone unanswered by those who call themselves Bahá'ís. And what is singularly disturbing is that we who raise such questions are invariably labelled as "covenant-breakers" simply because we have the temerity to ask the questions. It is therefore a very sad time when the questions that need to be answered are not given the attention that they deserve.

Perhaps one of the most important of the questions that is being asked at this time is this: Why are those who ask questions about the legitimacy of the present administration of the Bahá'í Faith which has its "Universal House of Justice" in Haifa, Israel, considered to be breaking the Covenant of Bahá'u'lláh?

That question cannot be answered satisfactorily because of the way it leads to all the other un-answered questions that Bahá'ís the world over are not prepared to answer. It is one thing to smugly assert that your religious organization has all the answers to resolve the world's problems. It is quite another matter to face up to those questions that your administrative bodies and your religious leaders do not want you to consider. The questions that have never been satisfactorily answered by the current administration of the majority of Bahá'ís in the world are these:

1) If, as Shoghi Effendi states on page four of The World Order of Bahá'u'lláh the Most Holy Book of Bahá'u'lláh (The Kitáb-i-Aqdas) and the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá "are not only complementary, but that they mutually confirm one another, and are inseparable parts of one complete unit," how can the current administration of the Faith for the majority of Bahá'ís in the world disavow some of the major provisions of 'Abdu'l-Bahá's Will?

2) Upon what basis in the writings of the Faith did the Hands of the Cause in 1957 assume the role of a collective Guardian of the Faith when the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá specifically states that the Hands of the Faith "must be under his [the Guardian's] shadow and obey his command," that they are to be "under the direction of the guardian of the Cause of God" and further that "He [the Guardian] must continually urge them to strive and endeavor to the utmost of their ability to diffuse the sweet savors of God..."?

3) Where in the writings of the Faith are the Hands of the Cause assured that they, minus a living Guardian to guide them, will make the right decisions for the guidance of the Faith?

4) Where in the writings of the Faith is the Universal House of Justice given the power to take over a function of the Guardian's which is expressly delineated in the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá--namely, that provision in the Will which states that the fixed money offering, the Huquq, "is to be offered through the guardian of the Cause of God"?

5) Where in the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, a divinely conceived Testament that delineates the Bahá'í Administrative Order, is there a provision which authorizes the Universal House of Justice to be established or function without the Guardian serving as its sacred head? (The Will states: "By this body all the difficult problems are to be resolved and the guardian of the Cause of God is its sacred head and the distinguished member for life of that body.")

6) Where is the "sacred head" of the current UHJ?

7) If Shoghi Effendi translated 'Abdu'l-Bahá's Will and Testament into English, as he did, and if, as he said, future translations of the Will were to be made from the English version, then why must anyone believe that the provision in the Will and Testament related to the appointment of the Guardian's successor makes it mandatory for the appointed one to be of the "blood-line of Bahá'u'lláh" as interpreted by the Hands of the Cause and subsequently by the sans-Guardian UHJ?

[The provision in the Will reads as follows:

O ye beloved of the Lord! It is incumbent upon the guardian of the Cause of God to appoint in his own life-time him that shall become his successor, that differences may not arise after his passing. He that is appointed must manifest in himself detachment from all worldly things, must be the essence of purity, must show in himself the fear of God, knowledge, wisdom and learning. Thus, should the first-born of the guardian of the Cause of God not manifest in himself the truth of the words:--'"the child is the secret essence of its sire," that is, should he not inherit of the spiritual within him (the guardian of the Cause of God) and his glorious lineage not be matched with a goodly character, then must he, (the guardian of the Cause of God) choose another branch to succeed him.]

8) Where in the aforementioned passage from the Will is there a clearly-established proviso that the successor of the Guardian of the Faith must be of the "blood-line of Bahá'u'lláh?"

9) How do the Bahá'ís who presently follow the sans-Guardian Universal House of Justice respond to the view that 'Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi both stated that the spiritual relationship is far more important than the physical one, thus making it clear that the Guardian's appointment of his successor would be based on spiritual qualities rather than on strictly family ties?

10) Upon what basis in the writings can anyone be called a "covenant-breaker" if that individual, in compliance with Shoghi Effendi's qualifications of a believer, maintains a "loyal and steadfast adherence to every clause of our Beloved's sacred Will" [See Bahá'í Administration, p. 90.]

Until such time as the Bahá'ís around the world have the kinds of definitive answers to these questions that 'Abdu'l-Bahá Himself provided to the questions asked of Him and which appear in Some Answered Questions, the Bahá'ís will continue to be at odds with one another over the legitimate organizational pattern that will lead to "that Divine Civilization, the establishment of which is the primary mission of the Bahá'í Faith," spoken of by Shoghi Effendi on pages 3 and 4 of The World Order of Bahá'u'lláh.

Share/Save/Bookmark

more from Orthodox Bahai
 
Brent Poirier

Some Long-Ago Answered Questions

by Brent Poirier on



Since “Orthodox Baha'i” has posed what he or she terms “unanswered questions” //iranian.com/main/blog/orthodox-bahai/so... I will endeavor to reply directly. This reply is not so much directed to “Orthodox Baha'i,” who already knows these answers, and who only asks the questions to draw attention to a lost cause. Rather, my purpose is to demonstrate to those who are not Baha'is that full and satisfactory answers to these questions were provided many years ago.

These are baseless claims to the Guardianship, which the vast majority of Baha'is consider as having been resolved conclusively fifty years ago. So, to proceed with the questions:

“1) If, as Shoghi Effendi states on page four of The World Order of Bahá'u'lláh the Most Holy Book of Bahá'u'lláh (The Kitáb i Aqdas) and the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l Bahá "are not only complementary, but that they mutually confirm one another, and are inseparable parts of one complete unit," how can the current administration of the Faith for the majority of Bahá'ís in the world disavow some of the major provisions of 'Abdu'l Bahá's Will?”

The Universal House of Justice has never disavowed any part of Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament. Its conduct during the 46 years of its existence shows that it has been faithful to its provisions. The Master's Will is the very Charter of the administration of our Faith, as can be seen from a perusal of the letters of the Universal House of Justice and its Constitution //tinyurl.com/constitution-house .

I address this issue more fully on my blog at: //bahai-covenant.blogspot.com/2009/03/insepar...

 

The second question posed is: “2) Upon what basis in the writings of the Faith did the Hands of the Cause in 1957 assume the role of a collective Guardian of the Faith when the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l Bahá specifically states that the Hands of the Faith "must be under his [the Guardian's] shadow and obey his command," that they are to be "under the direction of the guardian of the Cause of God" and further that "He [the Guardian] must continually urge them to strive and endeavor to the utmost of their ability to diffuse the sweet savors of God..."?”

The Hands of the Cause demonstrated an intense devotion to the Guardian of the Faith, and never, to the extent of a single word, claimed to be acting as a Guardian. Rather, they carried out, to the letter, the instructions of the Guardian of the Faith after his passing, and with a very few exceptions, everyone in the Baha'i world accepted this. In doing so, they demonstrated what Shoghi Effendi had himself, in 1949, termed their “executive authority.”

Furthermore, the Hands clearly held the highest office in the entire Baha'i community. Their rank was higher than the rank of the National Spiritual Assemblies, and their functions of protection and propagation were of supreme importance. Further, the National Spiritual Assemblies expressed their recognition of the authority of the Hands of the Cause.

I have explained this more fully in the posting on my blog, “The Authority of the Hands of the Cause of God to lead the Faith”. //bahai-covenant.blogspot.com/2009/03/authori...

 

The third question posed is: “3) Where in the writings of the Faith are the Hands of the Cause assured that they, minus a living Guardian to guide them, will make the right decisions for the guidance of the Faith?”

That the Hands were divinely guided is abundantly seen from the fruits of their conduct during the 6 year interregnum between the divinely-guided institution of the Guardianship and the equally divinely-guided Universal House of Justice. They kept the Faith intact, they guided the Baha'i community to fulfil the goals of the Ten Year Crusade, and they arranged for the election of the Universal House of Justice at its triumphal conclusion in 1963. However, they had no written assurance of infallible divine guidance, and never claimed it.

For example, in their 1959 Conclave Message to the Baha'i world the Hands wrote,

“Well aware of the fact that this great Faith of Bahá'u'lláh stands in sore need of the erection of that infallible and supreme legislative Body which in the words of the Centre of the Covenant Himself 'God hath ordained as the source of all good and freed from all error', and which the Guardian said 'posterity will regard as the last refuge of a tottering civilization', we have fixed the date for the election of the Universal House of Justice as Ridvan 1963...” (Message from the Hands of the Cause to the Bahá'ís of East and West, November 4, 1959; Ministry of the Custodians, p. 166)

 

“4) Where in the writings of the Faith is the Universal House of Justice given the power to take over a function of the Guardian's which is expressly delineated in the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l Bahá namely, that provision in the Will which states that the fixed money offering, the Huquq, "is to be offered through the guardian of the Cause of God"?”

A number of the functions of the Head of the Faith were shared – could be properly exercised by either the Universal House of Justice or the Guardian of the Cause. The Huququ'llah, or Right of God, is one of those. Further, there are Tablets from Abdu'l-Baha implicitly granting this authority. This is more fully explained in “The Authority of the Universal House of Justice to Receive and Disburse the Right of God” on my blog, at //bahai-covenant.blogspot.com/2009/03/authori...

 

The fifth question posed is: “5) Where in the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l Bahá, a divinely conceived Testament that delineates the Bahá'í Administrative Order, is there a provision which authorizes the Universal House of Justice to be established or function without the Guardian serving as its sacred head? (The Will states: "By this body all the difficult problems are to be resolved and the guardian of the Cause of God is its sacred head and the distinguished member for life of that body.")

The short answer is that provision for this is not only in the Second Part of Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament; it is explicit in a Tablet written by Abdu'l-Baha. In both instances, Abdu'l-Baha was in mortal danger, and He arranged for the Universal House of Justice to be elected following His passing. At the time, Shoghi Effendi was a young boy, unable to assume his functions as Guardian of the Cause. Abdu'l-Baha provided for the House of Justice to be established and to function with only its elected members, and provided that it would be divinely guided when it did so.

I explore this more fully in my posting “Is there provision in the Baha'i Writings for the Universal House of Justice to function infallibly with only its elected members?” on my blog at //bahai-covenant.blogspot.com/2009/03/is-ther...

 

The next question from “Orthodox Baha'i” is: 6) Where is the "sacred head" of the current UHJ?

I address this in my posting “Is the Universal House of Justice authorized to function without the Guardian of the Cause as its "sacred head"? //bahai-covenant.blogspot.com/2009/03/is-univ...

 

I will take the next two questions together: “7) If Shoghi Effendi translated 'Abdu'l Bahá's Will and Testament into English, as he did, and if, as he said, future translations of the Will were to be made from the English version, then why must anyone believe that the provision in the Will and Testament related to the appointment of the Guardian's successor makes it mandatory for the appointed one to be of the "blood line of Bahá'u'lláh" as interpreted by the Hands of the Cause and subsequently by the sans Guardian UHJ?”

AND

“8) Where in the aforementioned passage from the Will is there a clearly established proviso that the successor of the Guardian of the Faith must be of the 'blood line of Bahá'u'lláh?'"

Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi all require that the office of Guardian of the Cause is confined to the male lineage of Baha'u'llah. By bringing up the irrelevant point that translations of the Baha'i Writings should be based primarily on Shoghi Effendi's English translations, together with reference to the original Text, the questioner is here attempting to declare as irrelevant the provision that the Guardianship is a hereditary office. Whatever the process for translation of the Writings, does not open up the hereditary office of the Guardianship to whomever wishes to claim it.

I address this more fully in my posting “Must the Guardian of the Cause be a descendant of Baha'u'llah?” //bahai-covenant.blogspot.com/2009/03/must-gu...

 

The next question from Orthodox Baha'i is: “9) How do the Bahá'ís who presently follow the sans Guardian Universal House of Justice respond to the view that 'Abdu'l Bahá and Shoghi Effendi both stated that the spiritual relationship is far more important than the physical one, thus making it clear that the Guardian's appointment of his successor would be based on spiritual qualities rather than on strictly family ties?

This again jumps the tracks of logic. That spiritual qualities are more important than physical ones is quite beside the point. This cannot be grounds for entirely dismissing the requirement that the Guardianship is solely a “hereditary office” which can only be held by a male descendant of the Manifestation of God, designated by Shoghi Effendi. If Abdu'l-Baha intended that just anyone could be appointed as Guardian of the Cause, He would have said so, instead of stating that only one of the Aghsan could be appointed.

 

“Orthodox Baha'is” last question is: 10) Upon what basis in the writings can anyone be called a "covenant breaker" if that individual, in compliance with Shoghi Effendi's qualifications of a believer, maintains a "loyal and steadfast adherence to every clause of our Beloved's sacred Will" [See Bahá'í Administration, p. 90.]

A Covenant-breaker is anyone who tries to create a schism within the Baha'i community or who disobeys an order of the Head of the Baha'i Faith directed specifically at him or her. It involves renunciation of the proper Head of the Faith. The declaration of anyone as a Covenant-breaker is not done lightly or for trivial reasons. Rather, it is only done as a last resort and after strenuous efforts are made to convince the person of his or her errors. False claimants to the Guardianship, despite their protestations of innocence, claim to be more faithful to the Will, than the properly-elected Universal House of Justice, and misguide the people. This brings to mind Mirza Muhammad-`Ali, who claimed to be the true successor to Abdu'l-Baha as Head of the Faith, regarding himself as true and Shoghi Effendi as false, presenting himself “as the exponent of fidelity” and as “the upholder of the Holy Writ.” (God Passes By, p. 248) It is crucial to the betterment of the world that the world knows where to look for divine guidance.


default

David M

by B (not verified) on

The links you provided about the 2 questions on Easter and Qoran reads like 1000 year old text! That is not interesting to me. You read it, please tell us in simple terms what are the 2 divisions in each case.

Shah and Bush are totally different. Different times, different cultures, although they are similarities I grant you that. I didn't talk about Shah either because it didn't affect me much. The issue is the scare they inflicted on ordinary Iranians. The fear that even within their 4 walls of their home SAVAK (intelligence service) would suddenly barge in and take them away. Thus trying to kill any discussion at birth.


default

Some clarification desired

by Ron Henry (not verified) on

I would like to know, how would you answer the islamic regime's allegations regarding bahais' activities in Iran in regard with Israel?


default

Comments

by David M (not verified) on

-- "In what calendar [date] should Easter be celebrated?" split Christianity in two

See at random, //www.keithhunt.com/Quarto.html

-- or the question of whether the Qu'ran is created or uncreated

see at random, //www.geocities.com/apotheoun/paper19b
the point about this is that such a question on such a foundational element of religion is (in practice) destructive of human brotherly fellowship; not that it should be, but we're talking about real emotional humans rather than hypothetical silicon robots.

-- However, please note that we are on internet.

That's certainly fine :) you spoke about Baha'is being at odds with each other, which they simply are not; if you are rephrasing this as a small number of vocal internet Baha'is, that may perhaps be another matter.

-- We also have some time on our hand.

Well this is a good question. If you compare the amount of effort that goes into debating such questions and the productive results, they probably aren't a great use of time at all, really - I'd suggest. Bringing up one's children to be good people and working with one's neighbours is far more important, and when a person is productively involved, they don't really have so much time on their hands, and theological questions are less relevant.

-- During Shah I vividly remember my family telling me not to discuss politics and say bad things about Shah. The fact that they would say don't talk about Shah was all the reason to talk about him when you have a chance and free mind. Don't you think?

I heard lots of interesting and unusual things about Bush. But I never talked about it much, simply because it wouldn't change much for me to do so, but then I was in another country which is different.
Ultimately, it's about when talk distracts from action; there needs to be a nice balance.

I gather Brent, below, has made a blogspot, which maybe we could direct our focus to.

I do myself plan to write something on this matter rather than hold discussions as I'm not much of an internet blogger, and this is purely as a matter of realistic time logistics!

All the best,

d


default

Good approach to starting a

by MS (not verified) on

Good approach to starting a dialogue B. It is much needed since there are many questions hanging in mid air!


default

David M

by B (not verified) on

Much of what you've said makes sense. I particularly liked these 2 parts: "In what calendar should Easter be celebrated?" split Christianity in two, or the question of whether the Qu'ran is created or uncreated, and you will realise that questions, whilst perfectly fine of themselves, have practical consequences in the real human world of imperfect intellects and self-interested egos."

Now for my information, the Easter question splits which 2 Christians believers? and creation or uncreaction of Qoran splits which 2 Muslims believers?

You also said:

"You can almost define the kind of question that destroys human fellowship and the kind of question that fosters harmony and unity."

and went on to conclude:

"I don't know of any Baha'is who are at odds with each other over these questions. I'd say the almost complete are not. Some may think about them, but they are not "at odds" in any way, beyond a tiny vocal handful on the internet."

That sounds right too. However, please note that we are on internet. You are on internet. You commented here. None of us is under the gun to believe or not believe anything. We are not being persecuted here. We are free to discuss. We also have some time on our hand.

So let's talk. Albeit talk from the intellectual point. I don't consider myself an intellectual but those who've read more than me (such as yourself presumably) should be able to discuss these things. Unless of course discussion of these things is offensive or something. But it can not be that most Bahais are not aware of all of this or that we are on internet.

The fact that we are on internet all the reason to examine complex issues not keeping them simple. More reason to practice tolerance not limit it. And more reason to have an open mind than a scared one.

During Shah I vividly remember my family telling me not to discuss politics and say bad things about Shah. The fact that they would say don't talk about Shah was all the reason to talk about him when you have a chance and free mind. Don't you think?


default

Response

by Brent Poirier (not verified) on

I have addressed most of these points on my blog
//bahai-covenant.blogspot.com/
Brent Poirier


faryarm

Challenges to The Covenant Foreseen..

by faryarm on


default

Refer to this article

by Papyrus (not verified) on


default

Lets learn more

by Iranian Student (not verified) on

I Invite Orthodox Bahais to have live debate here. Lets try to understand differences and sort them out. Thank you david for your detailed reply. I think we all need to learn more about Orthodox Baha'i Faith.


default

Personal Comments

by David M (not verified) on

Hi, my own personal comments.

> "Why are those who ask questions about the legitimacy of the present administration of the Bahá'í Faith which has its "Universal House of Justice" in Haifa, Israel, considered to be breaking the Covenant of Bahá'u'lláh?"

Your question has several elements.

1) THE SPIRIT OF QUESTIONING - Asking questions is fine, so long as they are in the right spirit. You can say, "Why do people greet people with a handshake?" in an inquisitive way, or in a negative undermining way. Inquisitiveness is good; undermining is often contrary to good. If the spirit is right, there is no problem with asking such questions as you mention.
Just consider how the question "In what calendar should Easter be celebrated?" split Christianity in two, or the question of whether the Qu'ran is created or uncreated, and you will realise that questions, whilst perfectly fine of themselves, have practical consequences in the real human world of imperfect intellects and self-interested egos. You can almost define the kind of question that destroys human fellowship and the kind of question that fosters harmony and unity.

2) BREAKING COVENANTS - It is critical that any religion or community aim for and maintain a single freely-interacting fellowship without competing cliques and sects, which humans, left to themselves, strive to produce. From disunity and ego spring so many of the ills in the world today, if not all. Just look at the problems of national sovereignty blighting the world today. The House, as the primary organ of unity in the Faith that other religions lacked and split up, to undermine that organ is to destroy the very thing that strives to ensure the vital unity of fellowship. In short, you might just as well pose the question, "Why would a health-service disqualify from practice a doctor who questions the legitimacy of the heart in the human body?" The answer to such a question is obvious, it need not be said. And since the covenant of Baha'u'llah regards unity, and it is a hospital for restoring unity into the world, it is obvious why undermining the position of the House is regarded as such.

> That question cannot be answered satisfactorily because of the way it leads to all the other un-answered questions that Bahá'ís the world over are not prepared to answer.

Perhaps. But people are human. The Baha'i Faith is full of people at all positions of the human journey. If it were just full of intellectual elites who can happily talk about any theoretical question without any emotional impacts, nothing would ever get done. The reality is that most people actually don't have the intellect to grapple properly with most religious theological questions, nor the interest usually either.

> It is one thing to smugly assert that your religious organization has all the answers to resolve the world's problems. It is quite another matter to face up to those questions that your administrative bodies and your religious leaders do not want you to consider.

I think they just want people to get down to the real business of putting into practice unity, love and fellowship in their daily lives amongst their neighbours, as this is what polishes the soul and heals the world. Most other things are a distraction or a hindrance to this.

> If, as Shoghi Effendi states on page four of The World Order of Bahá'u'lláh the Most Holy Book of Bahá'u'lláh (The Kitáb-i-Aqdas) and the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá "are not only complementary, but that they mutually confirm one another, and are inseparable parts of one complete unit," how can the current administration of the Faith for the majority of Bahá'ís in the world disavow some of the major provisions of 'Abdu'l-Bahá's Will?

That is an assertion that has no specifics to answer (beyond your questions below).

> Upon what basis in the writings of the Faith did the Hands of the Cause in 1957 assume the role of a collective Guardian of the Faith when the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá specifically states that the Hands of the Faith "must be under his [the Guardian's] shadow and obey his command," that they are to be "under the direction of the guardian of the Cause of God" and further that "He [the Guardian] must continually urge them to strive and endeavor to the utmost of their ability to diffuse the sweet savors of God..."?

Clearly, a child must obey his father when his father is present, but obviously in his absence or his death, they should not become impotent or unable to act.
In answer to your question, on the basis of Unity. Baha'u'llah Himself said, that if a religion becomes a cause of disunity, it is better to have no religion. Thus, unity is placed as a higher authority than religion, and it is on this authority of Unity that they arose to do what circumstances required.

> Where in the writings of the Faith are the Hands of the Cause assured that they, minus a living Guardian to guide them, will make the right decisions for the guidance of the Faith?

It is asserted that in the Baha'i Faith God's purpose would this time be achieved. That is, the Faith asserts that it is not within the power of the Custodians to deflect the Faith from its purposed destiny.

> Where in the writings of the Faith is the Universal House of Justice given the power to take over a function of the Guardian's which is expressly delineated in the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá--namely, that provision in the Will which states that the fixed money offering, the Huquq, "is to be offered through the guardian of the Cause of God"?

In the Aqdas, verse 42.

> Where in the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, a divinely conceived Testament that delineates the Bahá'í Administrative Order, is there a provision which authorizes the Universal House of Justice to be established or function without the Guardian serving as its sacred head? (The Will states: "By this body all the difficult problems are to be resolved and the guardian of the Cause of God is its sacred head and the distinguished member for life of that body.")

Baha'u'llah in the Aqdas Himself (verse 42) envisages a time when the House will have no Guardian, and both Shoghi Effendi and Abdu'l-Baha both operated without the House. If they thought their position so defective, they would have elected the House immediately to complement their position.
The criterion given by Abdu'l-Baha for the House, is simply that it be "with members elected from all the people" (SAQ 45)

> Where is the "sacred head" of the current UHJ?

Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi in their writings are generally establishing the constitutional relationship of the Guardian versus the House, particularly in the face of people who in their ego awaited the formation of the House and had designs to be on it through the purposes of their own ego.

> ...why must anyone believe that the provision in the Will and Testament related to the appointment of the Guardian's successor makes it mandatory for the appointed one to be of the "blood-line of Bahá'u'lláh"...

I don't personally find blood-line necessary. It's one of many useful ways for people to think about the question, and it's a natural ideal to fit in with the age-old design of human psychology. The important thing, is that any envisaged Guardian should be clearly and unambiguously appointed, which obviously never happened despite the opportunities and, from some pilgrim notes, Shoghi Effendi's seeming awareness of his impending passing.

> Upon what basis in the writings can anyone be called a "covenant-breaker" if that individual, in compliance with Shoghi Effendi's qualifications of a believer, maintains a "loyal and steadfast adherence to every clause of our Beloved's sacred Will"

if they act with a spirit of disunity in doing so. Everybody hoped and anticipated a successor Guardian; almost all bowed to the reality that there was none, except a few who could not accept it despite all the evidence.

> Until such time as the Bahá'ís around the world have the kinds of definitive answers to these questions that 'Abdu'l-Bahá Himself provided to the questions asked of Him and which appear in Some Answered Questions, the Bahá'ís will continue to be at odds with one another over the legitimate organizational pattern that will lead to "that Divine Civilization, the establishment of which is the primary mission of the Bahá'í Faith," spoken of by Shoghi Effendi on pages 3 and 4 of The World Order of Bahá'u'lláh.

I don't know of any Baha'is who are at odds with each other over these questions. I'd say the almost complete are not. Some may think about them, but they are not "at odds" in any way, beyond a tiny vocal handful on the internet.

d


default

in actuality...

by A (not verified) on

Bahaism, as I have recently been reading up on it and doing research on the interenet is a hodgepodge of all religions and some extra thrown in together and sounds pretty.
BUT, in actuality let me tell you as I see it among them, and I know quite a few both Iranian and non-Iranians... to put it in layman terms: IT AIN'T WORKING!
Everyone is accusing everyone else of everything with a vengeance and more!!

Good luck to all of you, you probably don't know any better. I hope you don't come to any harm especially in Iran.


default

Orthodox!?

by IranianInE. (not verified) on

Orthodox Baha'i??!!

//reference.bahai.org/search?max=10&lang=en&f...

//reference.bahai.org/search?max=10&lang=en&f...

Orthodox Cambell, Orthodox IRI,or Orthodox Marangella,...why not?

Bye


default

Orthodox Bahai

by B (not verified) on

Are you an ex-Bahai who is now an Orthodox Bahai? Perhaps that is the wrong question since you say you are a Bahai. So, did you change your Bahai affiliation and are now an Orthodox Bahai?

Many of our resident Bahais here talk about peace and love and harmony and equality in the world. They say they believe that people should be free to choose the religion through reading, education and so forth.

Since you are a Bahai but an Orthodox Bahai I wonder how come they don't participate and educate and discuss the issue of different beliefs in Bahais.