Dear Tim,
--- Tim Nolan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If any definitive answer to this is possible, only the
House of Justice itself can give it. Anything we say
is speculation. So, why don't you ask the
House?
For several reasons, I think it's premature to write to the House:
1. In this
In The thirteenth Glad-Tidings and The eighth Ishraq,
Baha'u'llah refers to The MEN of God's House of Justice as the
Trustees of God.
Dear Sandra,
Keep in mind that originally Abdu'l-Baha applied this passage when asked why
women were excluded from the Chicago House of Justice. It was later He
No, but I think they are, at least in some instances, *applications* of the Guardian's interpretations to current events. In other words, some interpretations given by Shoghi Effendi may have been "pure" (given just for their own sakes) and others may have been "applied." Is there a scientific
Is there a scientific way to distinguish between the two, pure and applied?
If you mean a reasonable or systematic way to distinguish between them, I don't
think that it is difficult to distinguish between them. What I called applied
interpretations clearly refer either to either a specific
In a message dated 2/1/2005 8:19:46 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 2/1/2005 12:21:19 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"Where else would the Guardian have found to consult on the future of the Guardianship?"
The Hands of the Cause
I do not think the Hands were appointed for that purpose. The House of
Justice WOULD be appointed for the purpose of consultation. The Hands were
servants of the Will of the Central Figures of the Faith.
Dear Scott,
The House of Justice is elected for the purpose of legislation. *All* our
our
In a message dated 2/1/2005 9:23:35 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dear Scott,The House of Justice is elected for the purpose of legislation. *All* ourour administrative institutions are expected to consult. Were this not trueof the Hands as well, Abdu'l-Baha would not have
Hi, Susan,
At 09:12 AM 2/1/2005, you wrote:
As one of the Counsellors explained to me, the purpose of Ruhi is not to
impose a particular orthodoxy. They didn't come up with a set a of beliefs
they wanted everyone to adhere to and then look for the quotes to match.
RAther they came up with what
Brent:
In like manner, though the subject of Paragraph 42 of the Aqdas is the
wakf, the endowments dedicated to charity, the contents have reference
to the institution of the Guardianship, and to the all-important matter
of the succession after the Manifestation.
Dear Brent,
I cannot see what
Susan:
That
strikes me as as big a leap as reading the Guardianship into that passage. My
point is not so much that the verse points toa Guardian as that
itestablishes that the Universal House of Justice can exist without one.
Dear
Susan,
My understanding from
Baha'u'llah's Writings is
I don't think Baha'u'llah says anything explicitly on this matter
whatsoever. However, the particular passage in question most definitely
presumes that a House can operate without an Aghsan.
While technically your last sentence is correct, the fact remains that
Baha'u'llah did not say anything
I thought this too, until someone suggested to me that
the guidance of the first Guardian as laid down in
numerous letters could be seen as that there is still
a Guardian, and that the Universal House of Justice
consults with the Guardian when they consult his
letters.
Whoever suggested
Endowments dedicated to charity revert to God, the Revealer of Signs. None
hath the right to dispose of them without leave from Him Who is the
Dawning-place of Revelation.
This passage of the Kitab Aqdas is clear. Even manner of disposition of the
House of the Bab in Shiraz, which was
Personally, I don't think that the concept of not *mutilating* the World Order
of Baha'u'llah is directly connected with the House focusing on Shoghi
Effendi's interpretations. Rather, consulting those interpretations, when
applicable, is one of the *implications* of avoiding such mutilation.
Ahang: Yes, but exact same thing is stated in regard to all
Spiritual Assemblies. That is, in consultation, they are all
recipient of Divine Guidance.
Dear Ahang,
Are there prerequisites outlined for the Universal House of
Justice that enables them to be recipients of Divine Guidance
as it is
When Abdu'l-Baha expanded this membership to include the Guardian of the
Cause,
He also expanded the scope of the House of Justice to include such things as
ruling on things that cause differences, etc.
Dear Ahang,
Might it be more precise to say when He made further elucidations as to
In a hierarchical reading, it would suggest that the primary decision about
disposition of the waqf resides with the Aghsan, but the House of Justice,
when
formed, has a role in execution of this decision.
That is, it could be understood that the House of Justice, when formed,
would
assist
In a message dated 1/31/2005 7:44:35 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dear Ahang,That's not how I recall his comments. My recollection is that he expected to*convene* the House of Justice, not just help with its election. I take thisto mean that he might very well have
I have often thought that if the Guardian had survived, and actually
convened the first House of Justice, the first order of business might have
been to address the nature of the succession of the Guardian. But that was
not to be.
Dear Scott,
But there is nothing in the Will and Testament that
In a message dated 1/31/2005 8:54:21 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dear Scott,But there is nothing in the Will and Testament that indicates that the Househas anything to do with the issue of succession. That was supposed to bebetween the Guardian and the Hands.
But
Personally, I don't think that the concept of not *mutilating* the World
Order of Baha'u'llah is directly connected with the House focusing on Shoghi
Effendi's interpretations. Rather, consulting those interpretations, when
applicable, is one of the *implications* of avoiding such mutilation.
There were no successors, the whole question of a Guardianship outside
the succession would be a matter for legislation by the House IF, IF it
were led by the Guardian acting as the Guardian.
Dear Scott,
If it were a matter of legislation it would be a matter of legislation with
or without a
Hi, Susan,
At 10:01 PM 1/31/2005, you wrote:
Yes, but those things aren't matters of authoriative interpretation. It is
those intepretations which will continue to be authoritative.
No, but I think they are, at least in some instances, *applications* of the
Guardian's interpretations to
In a message dated 1/31/2005 10:02:22 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dear Scott,If it were a matter of legislation it would be a matter of legislation withor without a Guardian.warmest, Susan
The House is a consultative body. Where else would the Guardian have found to
But as
before the infallibility in no way comes from the Guardian.
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?
In
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 03:16:17 -0800 (PST), Ahang Rabbani
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But as
before the infallibility in no way comes from the Guardian.
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
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding but are you a Remey-ite?
Are you insane??
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
__
You are
Susan: Is that what your argument is based on,
capitalization? Because as far as I know there is not any
convention whereby Baha'is are supposed to use upper case
letters to refer to the Universal House of Justice and lower
case when referring to other institutions. The only difference
Gilberto,
At 07:31 AM 1/30/2005, you wrote:
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding but are you a Remey-ite?
Sorry I didn't catch this message earlier. I have been running a fever.
Ahang Rabbani is far from it. He is a devoted member of the Baha'i Faith. What
would have made you come to that conclusion?
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding but are you a Remey-ite?
Are you insane??
LOL. Gilberto is not a Baha'i, Ahang, and he doesn't know you. But he is
familiar with Remeyite arguments and some of your arguments resembled
theirs. They insist that the infallibility of the House of Justice is
something
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
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 03:16:17 -0800 (PST), Ahang Rabbani
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But as
before the infallibility in no way comes from the Guardian.
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
Considering that I wasn't stating my opinion and and defining
my personal logic in an attempt to persuade, I would have to
say No to your question.
I don't view this as a great
debate with a winner and loser.
Dear Sandra,
Sorry if I came down too hard in that last post. I'm using the term
In a message dated 1/30/2005 12:29:19 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What evidence is there that he envisioned a living
Guardian?
Dear Gilberto,
Abdu'l-Baha talks about the Guardian being the head of the Universal
House of Justice for life in the Will
Dr. G. Thanks, the unsubscribe request went through
From: "Richard H. Gravelly" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: "Baha'i Studies" bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
To: "Baha'i Studies" bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Subject: Re: Scope of the House of Justice -VERY LONG
Date: S
Dear Ahang,
you wrote:
---
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?
what makes you so certain that
Dear
Susan, you wrote:
What the
rest of the Baha'i community did was go back to what Baha'u'llah said was to
happen if His lineage ran out before the election of the Universal House of
Justice. This was stated in the Aqdas:
"Endowments dedicated to charity revert to God, the Revealer of
I thought this too, until someone suggested to me that
the guidance of the first Guardian as laid down in
numerous letters could be seen as that there is still
a Guardian, and that the Universal House of Justice
consults with the Guardian when they consult his
letters.
Dear Janine,
I think the
Because Baha'u'llah makes no mention of the Institution of the Guardianship by
name in His Writings; and because even those references in His Writings to a
hereditary successor are limited to Him Who hath branched from this mighty
Stock, Him Who hath branched from this Ancient Root, and the
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?
I would like to offer some thoughts on this subject raised by Haji
Hi Susan, you write:
I'm still not persuaded that the Guardian is making a point about any
'uniqueness' to the divine guidance of the House of Justice in this passage. It
seems to me he is describing the same process that all our elected insitutions
are expected to follow. Mind you, I do think
But to me, there is no comparison anywhere in the Writings about the guidance
flowing to Local and National Assemblies/ Houses of Justice, to the passage on
page 11 of the Will where the Master states that the Bab and Baha'u'llah guide
the Universal House of Justice:
Dear Brent,
Yes, that
I'm in complete agreement with Brent's understanding and I
feel that is supported by numerous references from
Baha'u'llah's Writings where the *Trustees* are a direct
reference the the [Universal] House of Justice.
Dear Sandra,
Some of those passage you cite would refer only to the Universal
Susan: Some of those passage you cite would refer only to
the Universal House of Justice and some to Houses of Justice
in general. I don't think that the term 'trustee' is any hint
as to which He is referring to. All members of any elected
institution are 'Trustees of the Merciful.'
Dear
In a message dated 1/29/2005 6:55:36 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"Now, if I were not aware of the Guardian's persnickety precision
in his English translations, I might agree that all the previous post
references referred to any Baha'i House of Justice.
Brent wrote: For example on page 6 of the Constitution, quoted from WOB
153, the Guardian states that the House is divinely guided whether it is
making legislative, administrative, or judicial decisions.
Susan Wrote: What passage from the World Order of Baha'u'llah are you
referring to
Hi Susan, you wrote:
That particular passage does not strike me as saying anything different than
what is true of all of our elected institutions...
It seems to me that that entire passage from the Guardian quoted by the House
in its Constitution is an elucidation of the verse God will verily
It seems to me that that entire passage from the Guardian quoted by the House
in its Constitution is an elucidation of the verse God will verily inspire
them with whatsoever He willeth which comes from Baha'u'llah's Leaves of
Paradise:
It is incumbent upon the Trustees of the House of Justice
Two at that time members of the Universal House of Justice, on two different occasions (in speeches given in the Netherlands), as well as what I heard from several people I know who worked for several years at the world centre, that the House only makes a decision after having obtained unanimous
Dear Brent,
In the early days of the House, that is, for the first few years, every
communication was signed by the House. The idea of the Secretariat came
later as the number of such communications increased.
Presently, as you note, letters actually signed by the House are pretty rare --
In a message dated 1/27/2005 1:51:20 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"I believe the Secretariat is composed not of a pool of typists, but
comprises the personal assistants of each House member, as well as some other
staff members."
Dear Brent,
That is
In a message dated 1/27/2005 5:28:29 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"In the early days of the House, that is, for the first few years,
everycommunication was signed by the House. The idea of the
"Secretariat" camelater as the number of such communications
52 matches
Mail list logo
