"Abdu'l-Baha envisioned a Universal House of Justice that would have a living Guardian serving on it at all times, and as its Head. In that formulation, why wouldn't the infallibility of the House come through the Guardian?"
Dear Ahang, First off, the Guardian did not have to serve on it at all times. He could send someone to do this on his behest. That person would certainly not share in the Guardian's infalliblity and the House's decisions would not be any less infallible because someone else chaired the meeting. Second, if Abdu'l-Baha thought the infallibility of the House flowed from the Guardian one would think He would have said that explicitly. There are Tablets from Abdu'l-Baha where He speaks of the House's infallibility but makes no mention of the Guardian whatsoever. "In all the current discussions about the scope of the House, etc, folks make the assumption that when "Universal House of Justice" (or words that would refer to that exalted institution) are mentioned in the Writings, the same institution is meant." I think the assumption we are making is that Abdu'l-Baha is the authorized interpreter of Baha'u'llah's word. And hence the Master's elucidations on the operations of the House reflect Baha'u'llah's intentions. "Let me add a little spice to the discussion by suggesting (and not that I personally believe that!!), what if that wasn't the case?" >From a historical standpoint one could reasonably argue that Abdu'l-Baha's teachings did not always reflect Baha'u'llah's intentions but from a theological standpoint I think that would be untenable in terms of the Covenant. In regards to a House with a sitting Guardian you write: "Could such a House of Justice, for instance, legislate on, say, obligatory prayers? Of course. Why? Because the Guardian had a brought mandate to interpret the Text, and he could have guided the deliberation of the House on "acts of worship"." That doesn't make much sense to me, Ahang. The Guardian doesn't *need* the House to legislate where he can interpret. Yet he stated that the House, not himself, would decide this issue. I think the more reasonable explanation is that the clause in the Aqdas which says that acts of Worship should be done in accordance with the Book, did not exclude the House from ruling on 'matters that are obscure' in this regard. "So, to say, the Writings says such and such about the "House" seems to be talking about apples and oranges." I don't see a different House being talked about. I see Abdu'l-Baha did stress two things which Baha'u'llah did not mention, the its being headed by a Guardian and the second being its infallibility. Your argument is that the two things are connected. I don't see that. Baha'u'lllah never talked explicitly about the infallibility of the House but then He never stated explicitly that Abdu'l-Baha was infallible, as we've discussed previously. Infallibility is simply a theme which Abdu'l-Baha stresses a lot, probably because He saw it as necessary to preserve authority after the passing of Baha'u'llah. warmest, Susan __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu Web - http://list.jccc.edu/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/bahai-st@list.jccc.net New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
