The Baha'i Studies Listserv
On 16 Jun 2010 at 15:59, Hasan Elías wrote:
> Sen, did you try to clarify this issue asking the House?
I haven't asked them about the letter against teaching grace to our
children, but I have asked them some questions about the letters
written on behalf of the Guardian. The response was not illuminating.
I suspect my question was simply not clear enough for them, for it
certainly wasn't answered.
The problem is, the problem so complex, it's difficult to even
formulate the question(s). We have different editorial practices :
the editor of Unfolding Destiny includes only letters with a
postscript or signature by Shoghi Effendi or internal evidence that
the letter was in fact composed on Shoghi Effendi's instructions,
whereas the editors of other collections seem to be including
anything they think is written on Shoghi Effendi's behalf - and their
criteria for this are not explicit. This difference may reflect
different practices in Shoghi Effendi's office, because the editor of
Unfolding Destiny notes at one point :
==
Editor's Note:
>From December 1926 to April 1927, ... Miss Ethel J. Rosenberg ... was
on pilgrimage and kept up a lengthy and repetitive correspondence
with George P. Simpson. In these letters from Miss Rosenberg are many
instructions from the Guardian to the British National Assembly. The
letter reproduced in this compilation, dated January 29th, 1927 is
important for many reasons:
1. It is the only one from Miss Rosenberg which carried the
handwriting of Shoghi Effendi where he "Approved" what had been
written....
(Shoghi Effendi, The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha'i
Community, p. 64)
===
This seems to indicate that a pilgrim's private correspondence with a
member of the UK NSA often included instructions from the Guardian,
but only one of these letters show Shoghi Effendi's approval for the
letter. In fact, it seems that Rosenberg was not a secretary but was
the main channel of communication with that NSA for a period of 4
months.
Maybe this is a unique situation, explaining why the editor of
Unfolding Destiny was particular about choosing the letters he really
knew were written "on behalf of the Guardian." Or maybe it happened
in other cases too, that pilgrims and workers at the world centre, in
their own correspondence, conveyed information about Shoghi Effendi's
plans and opinions and instructions, sometimes as their own
observations, sometimes because Shoghi Effendi had asked them to.
Perhaps other editors are simply less aware of the issue.
In the case of the remaining letters through Miss Rosenberg, are we
to regard them as letters on behalf, or not? I was hoping that the
research department would say something about this situation, and how
many letters might be involved, for which secretaries, over what
periods. Either they didn't 'get' my question, or they were not
sufficiently interested to do the research.
A related aspect is simple misattribution: a letter or a snippet from
a letter may be transmitted as "on behalf" when it is actually
unambiguously private correspondence. I've found three letters
written on Holy Days, for example, one of which flatly contradicts
something that Shoghi Effendi reports in God Passes By. I think they
are probably private correspondence misattributed as letters on
behalf.
Another issue with these letters - which I didn't raise with the
Research Department because it's a known problem - is that the
letters are often in response to a particular question and situation,
which the writer and addressee know, but we do not. So what they
conveyed from author to addressee may be quite different to what they
seem to say when we read them today without that knowledge. Gerald
Keil has done one detailed study of one letter, for which he has
tracked down the question: he concludes fairly I think that what is
clearly seems to say, is not what it meant then. That's published in
German, but I'm hopeful there will be an English translation
forthcoming. I've dealt more brieflyy with a letter by a secretary
that refers to "The Baha´i theocracy, on the contrary..." which has
led to misunderstandings, but for which we can track down the
previous reference that makes it clear
(see http://wp.me/PcgF5-1ji ).
Apart from these issues of textual history, there's also some
theoretical questions. The authority of these letters is said to be
less (25 February 1951 to the National Spiritual Assembly of the
British Isles), but which authority is that (as interpreter of the
teachings, or as head of the Faith giving the orders of the day to
his generals, the National Assemblies), and how can an authority be
"less." ? Does that mean, less in extent (applying to a particular
situation), or does it mean, lower in status, so in the event of
conflicts they are overruled by any letter with a higher status?
What is meant by the Guardian's practice of reading all the letters
(apart, presumably, from private correspondence by his secretaries,
except again for one case with Ethel Rosenberg)? He also read all the
minutes of NSAs and various committees. Is this because he had to be
informed, or had to approve of everything? If he does not correct
something, does that mean he approved of it? Silence is a weak
argument, because Shoghi Effendi might have corrected something, by
oral instruction or in another letter we don't know about, or he
might have not taken corrective action because the situation changed
and the issue became moot.
What about Shoghi Effendi's instruction :
"As regards Shoghi Effendi's letters to the individual Bahá'ís, he is
always very careful not to contradict himself. He has also said that
whenever he has something of importance to say, he invariably
communicates it to the National Spiritual Assembly or in his general
letters. His personal letters to individual friends are only for
their personal benefit and even though he does not want to forbid
their publication, he does not wish them to be used too much by the
Bahá'í News. Only letters with special significance should be
published there."
(Shoghi Effendi, Extracts from the USBN)
We don't follow these instructions today - but the instructions are
themselves in a letter apparently written on his behalf, so their
authority is less - whatever that means - so perhaps we should not
take the above too seriously? But then, what is actually done is to
lump together all the letters of Shoghi Effendi, personal and on
behalf, to individuals and assemblies and his general letters. That
surely was not what Shoghi Effendi wanted - but what exactly *would*
he want us to do then? For that in the end is the goal - to determine
what Shoghi Effendi's intention was, and follow it.
I'm sure I haven't exhausted all the aspects of this. There are some
postings on my blog that touch on various aspects. In approximately
declining order of relevance
Letters on Behalf :
http://wp.me/PcgF5-14i
http://wp.me/PcgF5-1nd
On the distinction between Shoghi Effendi´s authorities as head of
the faith and as interpreter of the Teachings, see
http://wp.me/PcgF5-SF
for a letter "on behalf" that is misused by the Remeyites to boost
their claims:
http://senmcglinn.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/no-counterfeits/
(in the postscript)
On 3 particular instances I asked the Research Department about:
http://wp.me/PcgF5-1p9
and probably many more. Letters of Shoghi Effendi, and on his behalf
and possibly on his behalf, intersect with studies on virtually every
theme.
By all means ask a specific question of the Research Department,
about the saying grace letter. In this case, if we knew what
*question* was asked, or what proposal had been put to the Guardian,
it's very likely we will see that what was proposed was indeed a
Christian-specific practice, and that the response was appropriate
for that situation
Sen
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Sen McGlinn http://senmcglinn.wordpress.com
Happy are those who spend their days in gaining knowledge, in
discovering the secrets of nature, and in penetrating the subtleties
of
pure truth! Woe to those who are contented with ignorance, whose
hearts
are gladdened by thoughtless imitation, ... who have wasted their
lives!"(~Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions p.137)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
__________________________________________________
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]
Or 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 (on-campus only) - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
