In my humble humble fallible point of view we need to know the true Catholic
Doctrine before we say something:
********
** Count Mastai-Ferretti, Bishop of Imola, the 254th pope since the
inception of St. Peter's primacy, who had been elevated to the apostolic
throne two years after the Declaration of the Bab, and the duration of whose
pontificate exceeded that of any of his predecessors, will be permanently
remembered as the author of the Bull which declared the Immaculate
Conception of the Blessed Virgin (1854), referred to in the Kitab-i-Iqan, to
be a doctrine of the Church, and as the promulgator of the new dogma of
Papal Infallibility (1870).
(Shoghi Effendi: The Promised Day is Come, Page: 53)
He can quite well understand that after so many years of isolation from the
rest of the Baha'i world it came as a surprise to some of you to hear that
we, as Baha'is, must not have any affiliations with churches or political
parties. But he feels certain that when you meditate on this matter you
yourselves will see the wisdom of it. We, as Baha'is, can never be known as
hypocrites or as people insincere in their protestations and because of this
we cannot subscribe to both the Faith of Baha'u'llah and ordinary church
dogma. The churches are waiting for the coming of Jesus Christ; we believe
He has come again in the Glory of the Father. The churches teach
doctrines - various ones in various creeds - which we as Baha'is do not
accept; such as the bodily Resurrection, confession, or, in some creeds, the
denial of the Immaculate Conception. In other words there is no Christian
church today whose dogmas we, as Baha'is can truthfully say we accept in
their entirety - therefore to remain a member of the Church is not proper
for us, for we do so under false pretences. We should, therefore, withdraw
from our churches but continue to associate, if we wish to, with the church
members and ministers.
Our belief in Christ, as Baha'is, is so firm, so unshakable and so
exalted in nature that very few Christians are to be found nowadays who love
Him and reverence Him and have the faith in Him that we have. It is only
from the dogmas and creeds of the churches that we dissociate ourselves; not
from the spirit of Christianity.
(Shoghi Effendi: Light of Divine Guidance Vol.1, Pages: 122-123)
*******
Immaculate Conception
THE DOCTRINE
In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced
and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her
conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the
merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt
from all stain of original sin."
"The Blessed Virgin Mary . . ." The subject of this immunity from original
sin is the person of Mary at the moment of the creation of her soul and its
infusion into her body.
". . .in the first instance of her conception . . ." The term conception
does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body
was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in
its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the
generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive
conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata),
which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the
rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and
infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original
sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to
her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.
". . .was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin. . ." The formal
active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is
removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul.
Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity,
innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her,
by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and
debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she
was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam -- from sorrow,
bodily infirmities, and death.
". . .by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the
merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race." The immunity from
original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law
through the same merits of Christ, by which other men are cleansed from sin
by baptism. Mary needed the redeeming Saviour to obtain this exemption, and
to be delivered from the universal necessity and debt (debitum) of being
subject to original sin. The person of Mary, in consequence of her origin
from Adam, should have been subject to sin, but, being the new Eve who was
to be the mother of the new Adam, she was, by the eternal counsel of God and
by the merits of Christ, withdrawn from the general law of original sin. Her
redemption was the very masterpiece of Christ's redeeming wisdom. He is a
greater redeemer who pays the debt that it may not be incurred than he who
pays after it has fallen on the debtor.
Such is the meaning of the term "Immaculate Conception."
PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE
...
The absolute purity of Mary
Patristic writings on Mary's purity abound.
The Fathers call Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption
(Hippolytus, "Ontt. in illud, Dominus pascit me");
Origen calls her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete
sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the
serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings ("Hom. i in diversa");
Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a virgin immune through grace from every
stain of sin ("Sermo xxii in Ps. cxviii);
Maximum of Turin calls her a dwelling fit for Christ, not because of her
habit of body, but because of original grace ("Nom. viii de Natali Domini");
Theodotus of Ancyra terms her a virgin innocent, without spot, void of
culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns,
untaught the ills of Eve nor was there any communion in her of light with
darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God ("Orat. in S.
Dei Genitr.").
In refuting Pelagius St. Augustine declares that all the just have truly
known of sin "except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the
Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned" (De natur� et
grati� 36).
Mary was pledged to Christ (Peter Chrysologus, "Sermo cxl de Annunt.
B.M.V.");
it is evident and notorious notorious that she was pure from eternity,
exempt from every defect (Typicon S. Sabae);
she was formed without any stain (St. Proclus, "Laudatio in S. Dei Gen.
ort.", I, 3);
she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other
natures (Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140);
when the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to
anticipate the germ of grace, but remained devoid of fruit (John Damascene,
"Hom. i in B. V. Nativ.", ii).
The Syrian Fathers never tire of extolling the sinlessness of Mary. St.
Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of
Mary's grace and sanctity: "Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure
in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity ...., alone made
in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and
hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and
sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure,
all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate
spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . ...
flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate" ("Precationes
ad Deiparam" in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37).
To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most
estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed
fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind
intact and immaculate ("Carmina Nisibena").
Jacob of Sarug says that "the very fact that God has elected her proves that
none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any
other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and
rejected Mary". It seems, however, that Jacob of Sarug, if he had any clear
idea of the doctrine of sin, held that Mary was perfectly pure from original
sin ("the sentence against Adam and Eve") at the Annunciation.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
....
It is detailed we need to study it...
We need to know and love the Guardian more
***After the Guardian's passing, when I entered his room as one of the Hands
of the Cause of God who went there to search for any directions he might
have left, I was exceedingly surprised to find there was no master file or
copies of letters, and to realize that the constancy of his answers was
another of the unfathomable prodigies of the incredible mind and guidance of
Shoghi Effendi. This constancy was and is proof of his vast, complete,
orderly and deep knowledge of the Sacred Writings, of his steadfast
adherence to the principles and laws of the Faith, and, above all, of that
conferred infallibility inherent in his station of Guardianship.
This characteristic is not the singular trait of an ordinary man but is an
exemplary firstness, in the realm of objectivity and justice, of a human
being who received his strength and vision from the unexplorable world of
the Spirit. He possessed principles and virtues that were sublime and
memorable; his actions could not be limited by the indetermination that
often springs from the happening itself, but must be considered a unique
bounty from God the Almighty.
(Ugo Giachery, Shoghi Effendi - Recollections, p. 40)
****
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard H. Gravelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Baha'i Studies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 27 December 2003 19:03
Subject: Re: Questions concerning "Immaculate Conception"
> If the concern regarding the idea that the Immaculate Conception of the
> Virgin Mary implies that Mary having been "from the instant of *her*
> conception, by a singular
> privilege by the omnipotent grace of God, through the application of the
> merits of
> Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all the
> fault of original sin" is the same as "Christ found existence through the
> spirit of God"; then it seems to me that the Conception of Mary and the
> Birth of Jesus were miracles.
>
> Richard.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Baha'i Studies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 12:18 AM
> Subject: Questions concerning "Immaculate Conception"
>
>
> Dear friends,
>
> While looking up references to Catholic confession, I also came across
this
> reference in Lights of Guidance (p. 159) to the Immaculate Conception.
>
> "The churches teach doctrines--various ones in various creeds--which we as
> Baha'is do not accept; such as the bodily Resurrection, confession, or, in
> some
> creeds, the denial of the Immaculate Conception." (From a letter written
on
> behalf of Shoghi Effendi to the Baha'is of
> Vienna, June 24, 1947)
>
> According to this letter we do not accept the "denial of the Immaculate
> Conception." I suppose one could argue that "Immaculate Conception" really
> means
> "virgin birth" as stated in a later 1948 letter written on behalf of
Shoghi
> Effendi, but what pre-1947 Christian creed denies the virgin birth? Does
> anyone
> know of one? I haven't found any. Or does this letter really mean Baha'is
> are
> also obligated to affirm the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception?
> This is the Catholic position or Pope Pius lX's definition of the
dogma
> of the Immaculate Conception: "We define the doctrine which holds the most
> blessed Virgin Mary was, from the instant of *her* conception, by a
singular
> privilege by the omnipotent grace of God, through the application of the
> merits of
> Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all the
> fault of original sin, that this is revealed by God and is to be believed
by
> all
> the faithful, firmly and constantly." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #
> 491, citing Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus, 1854: DS 2803. Emphasis added)
> Correct me, if I'm wrong, but presently it looks like the secretary
> misunderstood the references to Immaculate Conception in Promised Day Is
> Come,
> published early in the 1940s, assumed Baha'is should affirm the belief (as
> stated
> in the 1946 letter below and this 1947 letter), and therefore took
exception
> to the Protestant and Eastern Orthodox denial of the Immaculate
Conception.
> If one were looking up creeds or information about the Immaculate
> Conception, one popular available source at the time would have been
> Schaff's "Creeds
> of Christendom" (vol. 1-3, published 1879, 1878, 1884, and reprinted
1931),
> which, for example, discusses the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate
> Conception at length and discusses its formal rejection by Protestants and
> the Eastern
> Church (vol. 1).
> Whatever the secretary's source for Christian creeds, it looks like
the
> secretary really thought this sectarian denial of the Immaculate
Conception
> was
> contrary to what was in Shoghi Effendi's Promised Day Is Come. And this
> mistake could have been easily made, since the Guardian wrote:
>
> "Count Mastai-Ferretti, Bishop of Imola, the 254th pope since the
inception
> of St. Peter's primacy, who had been elevated to the apostolic throne two
> years
> after the Declaration of the Bab, and the duration of whose pontificate
> exceeded that of any of his predecessors, will be permanently remembered
as
> the
> author of the Bull which declared the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed
> Virgin
> (1854), referred to in the Kitab-i-Iqan, to be a doctrine of the Church,
and
> as the promulgator of the new dogma of Papal Infallibility (1870)."
> (Promised
> Day Is Come, p. 53, 1941)
>
> That is, one could assume that Shoghi Effendi is saying that the
"Immaculate
> Conception" is referred to in the Kitab-i-Iqan, rather than just the
> "Blessed
> Virgin" is referred to in the Kitab-i-Iqan. But shortly afterwards it
> appears
> that the secretary realized or learned the mistake and attempted to
correct
> it, but without acknowledging that a mistake had occurred. The 1948 letter
> states: "At the time when you and your dear husband came into the Faith
the
> teachings were not as fully translated as they are now, and there were
many
> misapprehensions regarding certain matters. One of them seems to have been
> the
> 'Immaculate Conception' or what we really mean is the Virgin Birth (for
the
> two are
> different.)"
> It seems hard to believe that Shoghi Effendi would have ever confused
> the
> terminology for the two doctrines, since his own writings are so precise
and
> this controversial doctrine is perhaps the most significant and
long-lasting
> legacy of Pope Pius IX. Would it make more sense to assume that the
> secretary
> either confused the terminology, or was confused for a time over which
> doctrine
> the Faith affirmed?
> Another alternative is to believe that the secretary distinguishes the
> two doctrines only in this context for a reason not apparent from this
> letter
> alone, but that actually both doctrines are affirmed by Shoghi Effendi and
> the
> secretary knew this. Instead of letters affirming one doctrine using
> terminologies that refer to two distinct Catholic doctrines, there are
> letters actually
> affirming two distinct Catholic doctrines and one letter also pointing out
> that the two terminologies refer to distinct doctrines. Any thoughts?
> Below are all the letters related to this topic that I know of in
> chronological order (excepting letter #9, which is undated). I collected
> these
> letters from previous discussions about the virgin birth (where it turned
> out I was
> wrong once again). It looks like there is something of a methodology with
> regard to these letters. The first one is written by Shoghi Effendi
himself.
> It is
> not entirely clear but all the following letters may have been written by
> his
> secretaries, though he added wording to letter #6. That is, he wrote the
> first letter on a topic and secretaries mainly used this letter to answer
> later
> inquiries on the same topic. But when "Promised Day Is Come" is published
in
> the
> early 1940s the terminology "Immaculate Conception" is introduced, and it
> then appears in later letters, but then is clarified or corrected (?) in
> still
> later letters. Perhaps Shoghi Effendi later reviewed some of the letters
> going
> out or heard comments, orally communicated the distinction, and the
> distinction/correction began to appear, if indeed it is a correction. The
> first letters
> after "Promised Day Is Come" show the secretary referring to various
Baha'i
> books and speaking of affirmations of "Catholic" doctrine. All the major
> Protestant creeds affirm the virgin birth, so why single out Catholics? In
> fact, what
> Protestant creed (pre-1940s) doesn't affirm the virgin birth?
> On the other hand, since the Guardian wrote on the bottom of letter
#6,
> this suggests that he used the terminology "immaculate conception" to
refer
> to
> the virgin birth, or approved of it, or saw no problem with it, or
actually
> affirmed the doctrine of the immaculate conception. But I can't see anyway
> of
> knowing for sure if he actually carefully read the contents of the letter,
> even
> if he wrote on it. That is, he may have trusted the secretary to already
be
> informed on the topics addressed, or dictated various answers, and allowed
> the
> secretary to use her own words without micro-managing the wording.
>
> THE LETTER WRITTEN BY SHOGHI EFFENDI
>
> [1]
>
> "It would be sacrilege for a Baha'i to believe that the parents of Jesus
> were
> illegally married and that the latter was consequently of an illegal
union.
> Such a possibility cannot be even conceived by a believer who recognizes
the
> high station of Mary and the Divine Prophethood of Jesus Christ. It is
this
> same false accusation which the people of His Day attributed to Mary that
> Baha'u'llah indirectly repudiated in the Iqan. The only alternative
> therefore is to
> admit that the birth of Jesus has been miraculous. The operation of
miracles
> is not necessarily irrational or illogical. It does by no means
constitute
> a
> limitation of the Omnipotence of God. The belief in the possibilities of
> miracles, on the contrary, implies that God's power is beyond any
limitation
> whatsoever. For it is only logical to believe that the Creator, Who is
the
> sole
> Author of all the laws operating in the universe, is above them and can,
> therefore, if He deems it necessary, alter them at His Own Will. We, as
> humans, cannot
> possibly attempt to read His Mind, and to fully grasp His Wisdom. Mystery
is
> therefore an inseparable part of true religion, and as such, should be
> recognized by the believers." (From a letter written by Shoghi Effendi to
an
> individual believer, dated 1 October 1935; published in Canadian Baha'i
> News, February
> 1968, p. 1; in Lights of Guidance, 1999 edition: #1641, p. 491)
>
> LETTERS WRITTEN ON BEHALF OF SHOGHI EFFENDI:
>
> [2]
>
> "First regarding the birth of Jesus-Christ. In the light of what
Baha'u'llah
> and `Abdu'l-Baha have stated concerning this subject it is evident that
> Jesus
> came into this world through the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit,
and
> that consequently His birth was quite miraculous. This is an established
> fact,
> and the friends need not feel at all surprised, as the belief in the
> possibility of miracles has never been rejected in the Teachings. Their
> importance,
> however, has been minimized." (From a letter written on behalf of the
> Guardian
> to an individual believer, dated 31 December 1937, #1637 in Lights of
> Guidance,
> 1999, p. 490; cited in letter written on behalf of the Universal House of
> Justice to an individual believer, dated 16 February 1996 at
> http://www.bahai-library.org/uhj/vbirth.ency.admin.html)
>
> [3]
>
> "Again with regard to your question relative to the birth of Jesus; he
> wishes
> me to inform you that there is nothing further he can add to the
explanation
> he gave you in his previous communication regarding this point. One
thing,
> however, he wishes again to bring to your attention, namely that miracles
> are
> always possible, even though they do not constitute a regular channel
> whereby
> God reveals His power to mankind. To reject miracles on the ground that
> they
> imply a breach of the laws of nature is a very shallow, well-nigh a stupid
> argument, inasmuch as God Who is the Author of the universe can, in His
> Wisdom and
> Omnipotence, bring any change, no matter how temporary, in the operation
of
> the laws which He Himself has created.
> "The Teachings do not tell us of any miraculous birth besides that of
> Jesus." (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an
individual
> believer, dated 27 February 1938; in Lights of Guidance, 1999 edition:
> #1638, p.
> 490)
>
> *****
> PDC 1941 "the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed"
> PDC 1943
> GPB 1944 "[the Kitab-i-Iqan]...upholds the purity and innocence of the
> Virgin
> Mary"
> GPB 1945
> *****
>
> [4]
>
> "With regard to your question concerning the Virgin Birth of Jesus; on
this
> point, as on several others, the Baha'i teachings are in full agreement
with
> the doctrines of the Catholic Church. In the Kitab-i-Iqan (Book of
> Certitude)
> page 56, and in a few other Tablets still unpublished, Baha'u'llah
confirms,
> however indirectly, the Catholic conception of the Virgin Birth. Also
> `Abdu'l-Bah� in `Some Answered Questions', Chap. 12, page 73, explicitly
> states that
> Christ found existence through the spirit of God which statement
necessarily
> implies, when reviewed in the light of the text, that Jesus was not the
son
> of
> Joseph." (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an
individual
> believer, dated 14 October 1945; published in Directives from the
Guardian,
> #107,
> p. 40; #1639 in Lights of Guidance, 1999, p. 491; cited in letter written
on
> behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, dated
16
> February 1996 at http://www.bahai-library.org/uhj/vbirth.ency.admin.html)
>
> [5]
>
> "We believe that Christ only was conceived immaculately. His brothers and
> sisters would have been born in the natural way and conceived naturally."
> (From a
> letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to Dr. Shook, dated 7 November
> 1945; published in Directives from the Guardian, #107, p. 40; #1640 in
> Lights of
> Guidance, 1999, p. 491)
>
> [6]
> [I'll have to go through my e-mail to discovery who kindly sent this
> source.]
>
> "Here is a modest contribution to the discussion: the extract of a letter
to
> Lucienne Migette, a French Baha'i woman. She had apparently been asking
some
> questions in her letters dated march 12th and 15th, but unhappily I've not
> got
> them. My text has been taken from a photocopy of the original. I think
it's
> never been published.
>
> 'Haifa, april 1st, 1946.
> Dear Baha'i Sister:
> Your letters dated march 12th & 15th have been received, as well as the
> article you forwarded, and the beloved guardian has instructed me to
answer
> you on
> his behalf.
> (...)
> Concerning your questions (...)
> no 5. Baha'is do believe in the immaculate conception, and no Baha'i
should
> ever try to minimize this doctrine.
> (...)
> With warm Baha'i love,
> R. Rabbani'
> [the remainder is in the hand of Shoghi Effendi]
> May the Beloved bless yours efforts, guide your steps, deepen your
> understanding of the essentials of his Faith, & enable you to promote its
> vital
> interests, your true brother, Shoghi
>
>
> [7]
>
> ....In 1978 I [Brent Poirier] wrote about this matter and provided these
> quotes, and in a memorandum included with the House's response dated July
5,
> 1978,
> the Research Department stated: "It is clear that the beloved Guardian
> understood the difference between the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin
> Mary and
> the Virgin Birth of Jesus. In October 1948 one of the believers wrote to
> him
> questioning Baha'i belief in the Virgin Birth, but referring to it as 'The
> Immaculate Conception.' The Guardian's reply, which was written by his
> secretary
> on his behalf, corrects this misunderstanding while answering the
substance
> of
> the question: 'At the time when you and your dear husband came into the
> Faith
> the teachings were not as fully translated as they are now, and there were
> many misapprehensions regarding certain matters. One of them seems to
have
> been
> the "Immaculate Conception" or what we really mean is the Virgin Birth
(for
> the two are different.) The Master clearly writes in a Tablet that Christ
> was
> *not* begotten in the ordinary way, but by the Holy Spirit. So we must
> accept
> this. Every Faith has some miracles, and this is the great miracle of the
> Christian Faith.'"
>
> [8]
>
> "The Master clearly writes in a Tablet that Christ was not begotten in the
> ordinary way, but by the Holy Spirit. So we must accept this. Every Faith
> has
> some miracles, and this is the great miracle of the Christian Faith. But
we
> must
> not let it be a test to us. Our human minds are so small, and as yet so
> immature compared to the men of the future, that we should have no
> difficulty in
> acknowledging the Power of God when He chooses to show it in some manner
> 'illogical' to us!" (Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an
> individual
> believer, dated 23 December 1948; cited in letter written on behalf of the
> Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, dated 16 February
1996
> at
> http://www.bahai-library.org/uhj/vbirth.ency.admin.html)
>
> ***
> PDC 1951 "the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed"
> ***
>
> [9]
>
> UNDATED:
>
> "What science calls a virgin birth we do not associate with that of Jesus
> Christ, which we believe to have been a miracle and a sign of His
> Prophethood. In
> this matter we are in entire agreement with the most orthodox church
views."
> (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi; published in High
> Endeavours: Messages to Alaska, #87, p. 70)
>
> ******
>
> warm regards
> Michael
>
>
> ----------
> You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st
> news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st
> http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public)
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
>
>
>
> ----------
> You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st
> news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st
> http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public)
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
>
----------
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st
news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public)
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
