Susan, when I said that I'm wondering if I should include what you said about the House prohibiting discussion of women on the House of Justice, in my list of writings that might limit what kinds of ideas we can promote, I was talking about the list that I've posted in this thread. I've said that I don't see anything in the writings that places limits on the kinds of ideas we can promote. I've asked people who do see things in the writings that place limits on the kinds of ideas we can promote, to post them, and I'm compiling them. Whenever I discuss my idea that there are no limits to the kinds of ideas we can promote, I will post the list, so people can judge for themselves.
You say that the House objected to the presentation of the Service of Women paper, and prohibited its publication. Is that something that you think people should consider, in deciding whether there are limits to the kinds of ideas we can promote? If so, I want to include it in my list, and I'm trying to decide how to say it. Here is my list so far: ---- "Whoso, while reading the Sacred Scriptures, is tempted to choose therefrom whatever may suit him with which to challenge the authority of the Representative of God among men, is, indeed, as one dead." - Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 174 "What one cannot properly do is to behave in a way that undermines the unity of the Baha'i� community, by challenging the institutional authority that is an integral part of the Faith one professes to have accepted . . ." - The Universal House of Justice, 1997 Jul 25, Removal of Baha'i Membership, M. McKenny "As you recognize, the authority of the Universal House of Justice is unchallengeable." - The Universal House of Justice, 1997 Jun 03, Interpretational Authority of the House of Justice "To none is given the right to put forth his own opinion or express his particular conviction. All must seek guidance and turn unto the Center of the Cause and the House of Justice. And he that turneth unto whatsoever else is indeed in grievous error." - Abdu'l-Baha, The Will and Testament, p. 25 "We should try and keep as near the authority [i.e. the scripture] as we can and show that we are faithful to it by quoting the Words of Baha'u'llah in establishing our points. To discard the authority of the revealed Words is heretic and to suppress completely individual interpretation of those Words is also bad. We should try to strike a happy medium between these two extremes. - Principles of Baha�i� Administration, pp. 24f. "The believers should be careful not to deviate, even a hair-breadth, from the Teachings. Their supreme consideration should be to safeguard the purity of the principles, tenets and laws of the Faith" - Shoghi Effendi, Dawn of a New Day, p. 61 "It is natural that the friends would discuss such matters among themselves, as you and your correspondent have been doing on your Internet discussion group; how otherwise are they to deepen their understanding of the Teachings? But they should recognize that the resolution of differences of opinion on such fundamental questions is not to be found by continued discussion, but in referring to the Universal House of Justice itself, as you have done. Prolonged, unresolved, public discussion of these fundamental questions can do nothing but breed confusion and dissension." - Letter on behalf of the House of Justice dated December 10, 1992 "In case of differences, Abdu'l-Baha must be consulted. They must revolve around his good pleasure. After Abdu'l-Baha, whenever the Universal House of Justice is organized it will ward off differences." - Abdu�l-Baha, Compilation on the Establishment of the Universal House of Justice, The Compilation of Compilations, Vol. I, p. 116 "Beware, beware lest anyone create a rift or stir up sedition. Should there be differences of opinion, the Supreme House of Justice would immediately resolve the problems. Whatever will be its decision, by majority vote, shall be the real truth, inasmuch as that House is under the protection, unerring guidance, and care of the one true Lord." - Abdul-Baha, quoted in Messages from the Universal House of Justice 1963-1986, p. 53 Letter of 31 May 1988 from the Universal House of Justice to the NSA of New Zealand, concerning a paper about women on the Universal House of Justice, that was presented at a New Zealand Baha'i� Studies conference. "As mentioned earlier, the law regarding the membership of the Universal House of Justice is embedded in the Text and has been merely restated by the divinely appointed interpreters. It is therefore neither amenable to change nor subject to speculation about some possible future condition." (The Universal House of Justice, 1988 May 31, Women and UHJ Membership) "It is natural that the friends would discuss such matters among themselves, as you and your correspondent have been doing on your Internet discussion group; how otherwise are they to deepen their understanding of the Teachings? But they should recognize that the resolution of differences of opinion on such fundamental questions is not to be found by continued discussion, but in referring to the Universal House of Justice itself, as you have done. Prolonged, unresolved, public discussion of these fundamental questions can do nothing but breed confusion and dissension." (The Universal House of Justice, 1992 Dec 10, Issues Related to Study Compilation) "Similarly, for believers to be drawn into discussion of subjects which the Writings themselves tell us will find clarification only through the passing of time, such as the wisdom of Baha'u'llah's limiting membership of the Universal House of Justice to men, the full implication of the Will and Testament, and the process by which the Baha'i� Commonwealth will emerge, would tend to divert attention from real and pressing issues. Such speculation may, indeed, be the real reason why such subjects are often so ardently pursued by opponents of the Cause." (The Universal House of Justice, 1999 Nov 22, Attacks on the Faith in Internet Discussions, p. 2) ---- Now, when I am discussing my idea that there are no limits to the kinds of ideas we can promote, I will include that list of writings that might contradict what I'm saying, and leave it to people to judge for themselves whether any of those writings place limits on the kinds of ideas we can promote. My question is, is what you're saying, about the House objecting to the Service of Women paper and prohibiting its publication, something that you think people should consider, in deciding whether there are limits to the kinds of ideas we can promote? If so, I want to include it in my list, and I'm trying to decide how to say it. I'm thinking of saying: "According to Susan Maneck, the Counsellors, the ABMs, those serving on the Executive Committee of the ABS and Tony Lee said that the Universal House of Justice objected to the presentation of the paper 'The Service of Women on the Institutions of the Baha'i Faith' at a Baha'i Studies conference, and prohibited its publication. (Source: Susan Maneck)" That's all I could honestly say, without further investigation. Jim __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/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
