> If only everyone had the same understanding that you have, there
would
> be no problem. But many, if not most, Baha'i's, understanding of
> statements by the Central Figures is that They (and the Universal
> House of Justice) are infallible, so as to mean that they can't
> make a
> mistake, literally.
Dear Ron,
Yes, we believe the Central Figures (I presume you are including the
Guardian here) and the House of Justice are infallible. And we all
have different understandings as to what that means. If you can be
tolerant of the literalists' position, maybe they will be tolerant of
yours.
>
> Thus, if the Universal House of Justice publishes someting that,
> subsequently turns out to be incorrect in soem point of fact, then
> many Baha'is will argue forever that the incorrect statement publised
> by the House is in fact "correct" and will engage in convoluted logic
> to try to justify that the House's statement (subsequently shown
> to be
> incorrect) is in fact correct and the whole rest of the world is
> wrong.
What Tim sent you, for the most part, represented the House's
underwstanding, not just his own.
"Thus, if the Universal House of Justice publishes someting that,
subsequently turns out to be incorrect in soem point of fact, then
many Baha'is will argue forever that the incorrect statement publised
by the House is in fact "correct" and will engage in convoluted logic
to try to justify that the House's statement (subsequently shown to be
incorrect) is in fact correct and the whole rest of the world is
wrong."
I've not known the House to make pronouncements in regards to
scientific fact, have you? In fact, I would be surprised if they did
so given the fact the One Common Faith document insists:
"Religion is religion, as science is science. The one discerns and
articulates the values unfolding progressively through Divine
revelation; the other is the instrumentality through which the human
mind explores and is able to exert its influence ever more precisely
over the phenomenal world. The one defines goals that serve the
evolutionary process; the other assists in their attainment. Together,
they constitute the dual knowledge system impelling the advance of
civilization."
(Commissioned by The Universal House of Justice, One Common
Faith)
Looks to me like they are saying we shouldn't let one do the other's
job.
You wrote:
"We have Baha'is publishing papers "supporting" their understanding
that evolution, as currently accepted, is wrong in ways that can be
"enlightened" by Baha'i beliefs. We have Baha'i physicists trying to
"enlighten" other physicists to see the error of their ways in the
light of our Baha'i "knowledge"."
And we have other Baha'is publishing books saying just the opposite.
Is that a problem? As the Universal House of Justice states:
"It is not surprising that individual Baha'is hold and express
different and sometimes defective understandings of the Teachings;
this is but an evidence of the magnitude of the change that this
Revelation is to effect in human consciousness. As believers with
various insights into the Teachings converse -- with patience,
tolerance and open and unbiased minds -- a deepening of comprehension
should take place. The strident insistence on individual views,
however, can lead to contention, which is detrimental not only to the
spirit of Baha'i association and collaboration but to the search for
truth itself.'
"And, lest it be left unsaid, the Universal House of Justice does write
things that are factually incorrect, whether we like it or not. This
is reality."
They don't generally write on scientific matters period, except to say
we should let science do its job. So what is the problem here?
"Also, if we read the Writings as science and history, we
will be mis-educating ourselves, and wind up living in a mythical
world-space out of touch with reality."
Ron, have you read the House's recent letter on mistakes in God Passes
By? Not the one that was written thrity years ago, the 1998 one. I'm
posting the entire letter above but let me draw you attention to a
couple of its passages:
"The faith of the believers should not be disturbed, nor their
adherence to the provisions of the Covenant diminished, by the
occasional discovery of factual inaccuracies in the Guardian's
writings such as God Passes By or his translation of Nabil's
Narrative. . .
That some of the historical reference material he consulted
may have contained inaccuracies, which inadvertently found their way
into his
book, should not be surprising. Such factual discrepancies do not
result in any blemish on the infallible insight with which the
Guardian treats such subjects as the
development of the Cause of BahÃ'u'llÃh, the significance and import
of the turbulent events in its history, and the interpretation of its
Teachings."
I think that makes pretty clear which parts of the Guardian's
historical writings ought to be considered infallible and which not.
"I have no interest in debating with anyone who claims that the Central
Figures and the Universal House of Justice have never and will never
be factually incorrect on anything; any more than I desire to debate
someone who claims I am a female (since I know myself to be male)."
So why start this fight in the first place?
In any case, someone who takes this position in regards to Shoghi
Effendi would find themselves in the untenable position of
contradicting both the Guardian and the House!
"But, though such beliefs be held by those of highest rank, they are
still wrong and ultimately lead to most gievous kind asof mischief."
Your catastrophizing again, Ron. But the House certainly would agree
with you that it creates certain problems:
"The House of Justice recognizes that, at the other extreme, there are
Baha'is who, imbued by what they conceive to be loyalty to
Baha'u'llah, cling to blind acceptance of what they understand to be a
statement of the Sacred Text. This shortcoming demonstrates an equally
serious failure to grasp the profundity of the Baha'i principle of the
harmony of faith and reason. The danger of such an attitude is that it
exalts personal understanding of some part of the Revelation over the
whole, leads to illogical and internally inconsistent applications of
the Sacred Text, and provides fuel to those who would mistakenly
characterize loyalty to the Covenant as "fundamentalism". "
warmest, Susan
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail")
is sent by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be
confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The
information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts
or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail
in error please immediately notify JCCC by email reply and immediately and
permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you.
____________________
The issue you have raised about the writings of the Guardian requires
an accurate and balanced treatment in Bahá'Ã
publications. As you are
well aware, an essential element of the Covenant of Bahá'u'lláh is
the
acceptance of the infallibility of the Guardian. In response
to
questions about this matter, a letter written on his behalf
in 1944
stated:
The infallibility of the Guardian is confined to matters
which are
related strictly to the Cause and interpretation of the teachings; he
is not an infallible authority on other subjects, such as economics,
science, etc.
A further clarification was provided in another letter
prepared on
behalf of the Guardian by his secretary in 1956:
The Guardian's infallibility covers interpretation of the revealed
word, and its application. Likewise any instructions he may issue
having to do with the protection of the Faith, or its well-being, must
be closely obeyed, as he is infallible in the protection of
the Faith.
He is assured the guidance of both Bahá'u'lláh and
the Báb, as the
Will and Testament of ‘Abdu'l-Bahá clearly
reveals.
As is the case with the House of Justice, the Guardian was
not
omniscient, and relied on the facts available to him in carrying out
his functions. Beyond that, he was meticulous about the authenticity
of historical fact. One of the friends in Yazd once wrote to him
stating that the account given by ‘Abdu'l-Bahá in
one of His Tablets
about events related to the martyrdom of some of the
believers in that
place was in conflict with known facts about these events. Shoghi
Effendi replied saying that the friends should investigate
the facts
carefully and unhesitatingly register them in their
historical
records, since ‘Abdu'l-Bahá Himself had prefaced
His recording of the
events in His Tablet with a statement that it was based on
news
received from Yazd.
The faith of the believers should not be disturbed, nor
their
adherence to the provisions of the Covenant diminished, by
the
occasional discovery of factual inaccuracies in the
Guardian's
writings such as “God Passes By� or his
translation of “Nabil's
Narrative�. It is useful to recall the following
description penned by
Amatu'l-Bahá Rú>Ãyyih Khánum of Shoghi
Effendi's preparation for
writing “God Passes By�, taken from her book
“The Priceless Pearl�:
The method of Shoghi Effendi in writing “God Passes
By� was to sit
down for a year and read every book of the Bahá'Ã
Writings in Persian
and English, and every book written about the Faith by Bahá'Ãs,
whether in manuscript form or published, and everything
written by non-
Bahá'Ãs that contained significant references to
it. I think, in all,
this must have covered the equivalent of at least two
hundred books.
As he read he made notes and compiled and marshalled his
facts. Anyone
who has ever tackled a work of an historical nature knows
how much
research is involved, how often one has to decide, in the
light of
relevant material, between this date given in one place and that date
given in another, how back-breaking the whole work is. How
much more
so then was such a work for the Guardian who had, at the
same time, to
prepare for the forthcoming Centenary of the Faith and make decisions
regarding the design of the superstructure of the Báb's Shrine. When
all the ingredients of h
is book had been assembled Shoghi Effendi commenced weaving them into
the fabric of his picture of the significance of the first century of
the Bahá'à Dispensation.
That some of the historical reference material he consulted
may have
contained inaccuracies, which inadvertently found their way into his
book, should not be surprising. Such
Concerning the Infallibility of Shoghi Effendi
and the Universal House of
Justice
Page 2
factual discrepancies do not result in any blemish on the infallible
insight with which the Guardian treats such subjects as the
development of the Cause of Bahá'u'lláh, the
significance and import
of the turbulent events in its history, and the
interpretation of its
Teachings.
As you have pointed out in your letter, this matter should
be treated
with care and wisdom. When the believers are properly
informed of it,
they will thereby be immunized against the attempts of the malicious
to sow the seeds of doubt through propagating unwarranted inferences
about the Guardian's infallibility on the basis of their discovery of
historical inaccuracies.
(20 January 1998) [1]
__________________________________________________
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[email protected]
Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:[email protected]
Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/?forum=bahai-st
News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
