Re: No "Personal Opinions" in Ruhi

[Popeyesays]

In a message dated 12/10/2004 9:15:56 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: OK, great.  So develop something you think will.  Surely you don't think the House of Justice would object to that do you?  If they do, then I for one know this isn't the Baha'i Faith it used to be.  But I'd have a hard time believing they'd get in the way. I doubt the House would object to any degree with developing new material. It is not the House that is pushing Ruhi. It is the Regional Teaching Institutes who will brook no variance. They say we HAVE Ruhi, so we should USE Ruhi and not waste time developing other material.   Even the Fundamental Verities material has been totally eclipsed and we HAVE that material.   I have done Books 1, 2, 4 and 7. One was okay, because the group functioned well. I have seen groups that do not function well. Book 2 made me uncomfortable because as much as it emphasized the Text it emphasized the opinion of the editors. Book 4 was basic, but very useful for most believers who have not made much study of the history of the Faith. Book 7 was interesting because in many ways it seemed to open up the system for a lot more flexibility than Book 1 would suggest. Unfortunately that spirit of flexibility does not seem to make it very far out of the book seven circle. I rarely see it practiced.   Regards,   Scott __________________________________________________ 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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