Should non- or ex-Baha'is be allowed; should I post warnings

[onepence]

Note from moderator: The following thread is split from a fairly-unrelated discussion at http://bahai-library.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?t=1002 , and partly in response to another thread at http://bahai-library.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?t=1006 calling for the word "Baha'i" to be removed from the name "Baha'i Library Online" if ex-Baha'is are allowed to participate. -J.W.<hr>

...My impression (I've been mostly out of the loop for about 5 years) is that there are entrenched paradigms in the communnity that will be very resistant to anything other than superficial or minor displays of movement beyond pseudo-community.

... Regards,
Eric

Call me old fashioned ... but I really dislike being on a moderated forum and reading how someone considers the community of the Greatest Name as being a "pseudo-community", because the community I know is vibrant and healthy.

I pray that all individuals may find, root out and destroy all pseudo claims of theirselves and thus be able to live peacefully within the community without restorting to such childish and immature expressions as name calling.

I maen think about it ... you wanna live in a mature community, then be mature yourslf .... don't resort to such comical actions as name calling .... using the term pseudo ... lol ... to refer to the community of the Greatest Name ... lol ... still laughing at that one.

oneness
the apostle dean

[Sean H.]

richard and Brent,

I don't have time for a long reply recognising in detail the tremendous erudition of what both of you have said, but just wanted to let you know that I greatly appreciate what you have both said, you are great examples of wisdom, tact and true spiritual insight. I understand the incredibly draining nature of dealing with narrow-minded, fanatical people, so I thank you both deeply for your efforts.

- - -

Jonah and any other moderators that might be paying attention,

I protest the continued and appalling attempts by several members of this forum to massively distort my comments and use those distortions as the basis for vile personal attacks, misrepresentations, etc.

As one of the original supporters of the bahai-library.org web site, I find it quite disturbing to see that the level of hatred and fanatacism has risen to such disgusting levels.

<i>[<b>Interruption from moderator: </b> Eric, you're on your own when it comes to defending or rebutting your comments. Sorry, that's not my place. Just tell me if you see profanity, spam, or statements clearly intended to undermine the Institutions. And don't forget, what's making people upset is the fact that I'm letting you post at all. -J.W.]</i>

Of course I'm not surprised that some Baha'is are promoting hate or fanaticism because I've seen the same kind of narrow-minded rhetoric consistently go on for decades. Indeed, this kind of Baha'i fanaticism is one of the big reasons that there is a large (and apparently growing) community of disaffected Baha'is/ex-Baha'is who have started developing their own support networks and semi-organized "dissident" polemics.

I personally have consistently argued against the more radicalized and dysfunctional forms of such "dissident" polemics, more or less on the basis that (because they are dominantly leftist-dysfunctional) they will never lead to the possibility of the kind of "real" reforms that the Baha'i community needs (reforms based on "integrative paradigms" as stipulated by the Universal House of Justice) .

Regards,
Eric

[onepence]

wow ... what a cool topic ... Judging the spiritual condition of others ... certainly am learning a lot ... I wish Dr. Hatcher, "one of the brightest minds" of the worldwide Baha'i community was still alive and could help us with this topic ...

This topic reponds me a lot of a news artcile I read many years back ... it dealt with training insurance agents in the subtle arts of Judging the spiritual condition of others so that they may more effectivelly sell insurance policies .... in sum the article stated that a well known insurance company had developed selling techniques based upon the scientilogists understanding of the scale of emotionality ... starting at the lowest emotional actions of homicidial/suicidal and ascending to the actions of the estatic ... the theory is one should judge the emotional state of the client and respond at an approiate level, normally one step above the clients ...

Dr. Hatcher ... if memory serves correctly ... had a whole different take on the spiritual condition ... he proposed absolute honesty was the best policy ... that is to state exactly your position from the start and allow others the chance either to support or reject your position ... in this process one can judge the spiritual condition of the individuals involved and the codition of the community as a whole.

It would be interesting to know, but alas we never will know, whether Dr. Hatcher would think it was a good idea to allow self professed exBaha'i viewpoints on a forum that is moderated by a member of the Baha'i Faith.

It has been my position all along that this is not a good idea, for a number of reasons, as pointed out the level of distorted comments by exBaha'is result in the viewpoint that the bahai-library.org web site has a "level of hatred and fanatacism" ... lol ... oh the shame of it all.

oneness
dh

[Dorumerosaer]

"It would be interesting to know, but alas we never will know, whether Dr. Hatcher would think it was a good idea to allow self professed exBaha'i viewpoints on a forum that is moderated by a member of the Baha'i Faith. It has been my position all along that this is not a good idea"

Well, it's not the view of the owner of this list. He provides wide latitude for expression of views, and I am grateful for it. Otherwise we would just be talking among ourselves, and while that is sometimes useful, it is also useful to get some honest reflection from others.

"It is a truism to point out that we are living at a period of history in which the earth has become a common homeland for a rapidly integrating human race. Whatever differences of belief may continue to divide us, the unyielding realities of contemporary history require that we learn to live together. This view must, the Bahá'í International Community believes, form the framework of any efforts of re-education that seek to influence attitude and behavior in the field of religious tolerance." (Baha'i International Community, 1991 Feb 25, Promoting Religious Tolerance)

Eric is not malicious; his comments, though pessimistic, are intended to be constructive. Are we Baha'is really so frail that we can't handle the comments of someone who disagrees with our views? Eric is speaking honestly, and when thoughtful responses are made, he considers them and acknowledges their merits.

Besides, Eric hasn't said he is not a Baha'i; I gather from his comments that he has withdrawn from activity. The man is burned out, and wants some space; but he wants to keep his hand in, to remain in contact, to work through his own spiritual efforts to reconcile the various truths he knows. I feel that kindness and frankness are called for; and thoughtful replies.

Just my view.
Brent

[onepence]

...



Besides, Eric hasn't said he is not a Baha'i; I gather from his comments that he has withdrawn from activity. ...

Just my view.
Brent

perhaps your view is colored by flattery of others.

perhaps Eric is a Baha'i who has wilffully withdrawn his membership from the Baha'i community.

perhaps Eric will be able to honestly express to our community of his status. i doubt he will.


just my view ... but I certainly would like Eric to come clean ... and then our community can judge more effectively if Eric is being malicious or just burnt out ...

just my view, but if Eric doesn't come clean as to his status, I for one will keep up my guard.

oneness
dh

[Dorumerosaer]

"The status of being an exBaha'i carries a heavy stigmatism to it."

I urge you to reconsider your attitude:

"If any Bahá'í finds that he does not believe in the Faith," the Universal House of Justice has stated, "he is free to leave it . . . , and no stigma at all attaches to such an action." (From a letter on behalf of the Universal House of Justice quoted in "Developing Distinctive Baha'i Communities" http://tinyurl.com/e6d4e )

There is no merit in our loosening what the House of Justice has tightened.

Nor is there merit in our tightening what the House of Justice has left loose.

Brent

[onepence]

"The status of being an exBaha'i carries a heavy stigmatism to it."

I urge you to reconsider your attitude:

"If any Bahá'í finds that he does not believe in the Faith," the Universal House of Justice has stated, "he is free to leave it . . . , and no stigma at all attaches to such an action." (From a letter on behalf of the Universal House of Justice quoted in "Developing Distinctive Baha'i Communities" http://tinyurl.com/e6d4e )

There is no merit in our loosening what the House of Justice has tightened.

Nor is there merit in our tightening what the House of Justice has left loose.

Brent

Interesting ... I never had heard that quote before ... I apologize for over stepping the boundaries which our beloved Institution has set forth ... have fun ...

oneness
dh

... btw ... i edited out the original offensive mark ... I know you feel "obliged" to keep the offensive remark up ... but, in case I am wrong, i will go ahead and ask you Brent to edit out my offensive remark also, ... hmmm ... will you edit out the offensive remark or not ... lol ... judgeing the spirtual conditions of others ... wow ... what a topic.

[onepence]

My deepest sympthy goes out to all readers on this forum, and especially to Eric, for my unelightened comments concerning exBaha'i's. I am sorry and pray that my offensives, however slight and unintential may be forgiven.

oneness
the apostle dean

[onepence]

O SON OF MAN!

Breathe not the sins of others so long as thou art thyself a sinner. Shouldst thou transgress this command, accursed wouldst thou be, and to this I bear witness. Bahá’u’lláh



In judging the spritual conditions of others perhaps it would be best to have a "private message" with someone if they feel the individuals comments are sinful before making a public spectacle of the issue.

Of course having selfprofessed exBaha'i views in any matter is never helpful to this individual.

oneness
the apostle dean

[onepence]

"It would be interesting to know, but alas we never will know, whether Dr. Hatcher would think it was a good idea to allow self professed exBaha'i viewpoints on a forum that is moderated by a member of the Baha'i Faith. It has been my position all along that this is not a good idea"

Well, it's not the view of the owner of this list. He provides wide latitude for expression of views, and I am grateful for it. Otherwise we would just be talking among ourselves, and while that is sometimes useful, it is also useful to get some honest reflection from others.

...

Just my view.
Brent

well you certainly are right about "not the view of the owner of this list" ... while doing some research I found this quote from Jonah ...

http://bahai-library.com/wwwboard/messages99/147.html

"Whether or not I am a Baha'i is not stated anywhere on my website, nor will it be. Only myself, my close friends, and the Baha'i administration know or will know whether or not I am a "member" of the religion. As a librarian and educator, my personal religious status is and must remain a private affair."

-Jonah

/////////////

this alas explains a lot ... how sad ... i feel duped into believing that this was a "Baha'i" site ... and now I have learned this is just some joe blows site ... wow ...

[Baha'i Warrior]

The owner (Jonah) is a Baha'i, I have heard of him. I think he is taking the scholarly/professional approach, which there is nothing wrong with that. But I think some of the stuff on this forum (like the heinous attacks on the Faith perpetrated by outsiders) is damaging, especially to any potential seekers that may be reading such posts. If there was some clear, definitive statement saying that the views expressed on the forum are not necessarily from Baha'is and do not necessarily reflect those of the Faith's, then maybe that would provide a solution. More aggressive censoring is also another idea, like banning people who come to argue and post statements that are demeaning to the Faith. Just a suggestion...

[Jonah]

i feel duped into believing that this was a "Baha'i" site

Dean, I'm sincerely sorry to have given any impressions that, you feel, misrepresented my approach, my personal beliefs, or this site.

On the main page of the site it says "This site is not endorsed by any Bahá'í institution and is not affiliated with the International Bahá'í Library."

Prior to that, I had this slight variation at the top of the page since mid-1997: "Note: this site and its content is wholly independent and is not sponsored or endorsed by any Baha'i body or institution". You can see these previous incarnations (of the main page) at http://bahai-library.com/?file=winters_ ... ts#history .

Finally, in the Vision Statement at http://bahai-library.com/etc/vision.pdf I spell out the "mandate":

The Library conforms to both Bahá'í and academic standards, e.g. it only includes material that is informative or historical, is written in a respectful manner, and is not intentionally deceptive. It does not contain any material which is proscribed in Bahá'í practice, e.g. "Covenant-Breaker" materials, personal or confidential documents, or photographs of Bahá'u'lláh. It also does not include any material which does not have a direct scholarly or historical application, e.g. "Teaching" manuals, contemporary photography, or basic deepening materials.

To respond to a frequently-asked question, the Library is not intended to be a "Bahá'í" site. My own personal beliefs are just that — personal — and are not stated in or relevant to the Library's content. Most of the Library's assistants and users are Bahá'ís, but some are not. This should have no bearing on the Library's content or editing, because editorial judgments are easy to base on objective academic or historical criteria. Having said that, the vast majority of its users are Bahá'ís (recent poll results: 93% Bahá'ís, 3% non-Bahá'ís, 4% ex-Bahá'ís, and 0% seekers), who can be assured that nothing here transgresses Bahá'í standards. The Library's content ends up being over 99% by Bahá'ís and/or sympathetic to the Faith, and less than 1% in any way critical of the Faith. This is not a ratio I have intentionally selected but rather a reflection of the documents available, of which only a tiny fraction are both critical and worthy: most pieces Bahá'ís would object to are automatically disqualified by virtue of being polemic, disrespectful, or academically unsound. It is also a reflection of which documents volunteers have felt motivated to type or scan over the years.

The Library is independent of the Bahá'í institutions, in that it is not funded or endorsed by any Bahá'í body and I have received no external editorial input. I frequently request guidance from the United States Bahá'í National Center Literature Review Office, the USBNC Research Office, and the Universal House of Justice, but have never received unsolicited editorial suggestions. It is important for users of the Library to know it is not an "official" site, because non-Bahá'í readers must be assured of its transparency and objectivity. Conversely, and in contrast to some Baha'i-oriented scholarly websites, the Library has no "agenda," either covert or explicit, that is in any way critical of Baha'i institutions. The Library also contains some content that was not written by or for Bahá'ís, i.e. documents by non-Bahá'ís attempting to better understand the Faith. Given that there are 5 million Bahá'ís and 5 billion non-Bahá'ís, I think the latter is the more important audience: I am more interested in helping the world's non-Bahá'ís come to know and understand the Faith than in providing another forum for Bahá'ís to discuss it amongst themselves.

I hope that helps explain things.

like the heinous attacks on the Faith perpetrated by outsiders

Can you point me to any examples? Please post the URLs and describe which specific posts you think should be deleted.

Thanks, -Jonah

[Jonah]

Let me clarify and emphasize my own position vis-a-vis the Faith. I'm not really being coy or secretive in wishing not to discuss or make a public statement about my own beliefs. A few years ago I wrote, and quoted above, "As a librarian and educator, my personal religious status is and must remain a private affair."

But more simply than that, it's not something easy to discuss. I spent 4 years as an undergrad studying Buddhism and eastern thought, and 2 years as a grad (Masters) studying Islam and the Baha'i Faith, mostly out of my personal search for truth. After what must have been thousands of hours of reading and writing on it in those years, I have come to some degree of clarity. Could I share it in a couple forum posts, or a simple statement of faith on the forum? No, not without distorting it beyond recognition.

But many years ago I did come across a quote which sums it up quite nicely, and which I put at the top of my "personal page" here at the site, http://bahai-library.com/personal/jw/

In the final analysis, for the believer there are no questions,
and for the non-believer there are no answers.
— Haffetz Hayyim

I love the humor in this quote, knowing how many people will assume I identify with the former (a "believer") or the latter (an "unbeliever"). So what are we, in this categorization? Do we prefer no questions, or no answers? For me, both clearly are two sides of the same truth.

So that's my personal stance in a nutshell. But how to apply that to selecting material for posting at this Library? I stand by the quote from the "Mandate" I posted above. Whether academic/historical standards trump Faith-based standards or vice-versa is largely irrelevent for me, in that 99% of the time both agree, and the remaining 1% of the time I usually discard out of playing-it-safe. (With the one exception being made for Covenant-Breaker material or photographs of Baha'u'llah, both of which are quite important for historical/academic reasons, but which are clearly prohibited.)

-Jonah

[Dorumerosaer]

When I became a Baha'i some decades back, I often heard older Baha'is say, "Well, you try, and you fall on your face, and you get up and try again".

This was not my experience.

My experience was: I lived on my face.

Once in a while, I looked up.

Once in a *very* great while, I stood up.

But basically, I lived on my face. My primary learning tool was learning from my mistakes. I think that there is no shame in coming to terms with one's mistakes; rather, I think it's a good example for everyone else, because we all, to some degree or other, make mistakes.

All of which leads me to say: No, I won't edit out the earlier quote from onepence about Eric, and the statement that withdrawing from the Faith carries a stigma. We have to be grown-up enough to recognize our mistakes -- as you have done, Onepence -- and also to live with the fact that we've committed them. Lord knows I make mistakes; I make them now, and will make them in the future.

On the subject of people being allowed to make critical remarks about the Faith: I personally *like* it when this happens, because it gives an opportunity for the power of the Faith to shine forth. When `Abdu'l-Baha was in Paris, someone asked Him whether, now that He was in the West, the Faith might grow better there, than in Persia where it was under such malicious assault. The Master responded, in substance, that "This is a Cause that grows more when it is attacked." I think this applies not only to open assaults, but to much more tame remarks that are critical of the conduct of Baha'is or Baha'i institutions. Our response to them can bring forth a greater light; because the Cause is endowed with tremendous resources; and they only come to light under pressure.

It is not only that constructive criticism can be helpful to a person. Some criticism of our conduct is justified; we have far to go, before our conduct matches the high standards of the Writings.

It is also that criticism, whether well-intentioned or ill-intentioned, can be, if properly used, the vehicle for strengthening the Faith, and for adducing the proofs of the soundness of the Faith. The proofs do not emerge, unless the pressure is present.

Shoghi Effendi places some malicious criticisms of the Faith, front and center:

"...whilst the greedy and conceited Ibrahim-i-Khayru'llah, who had chosen to uphold the banner of his rebellion in America for no less than twenty years, and who had the temerity to denounce, in writing, 'Abdu'l-Bahá, His "false teachings, His misrepresentations of Bahaism, His dissimulation," and to stigmatize His visit to America as "a death-blow" to the "Cause of God,". . . " (God Passes By, p. 319)

"To friend and stranger, believer and unbeliever alike, to officials both high and low, openly and by insinuation, verbally as well as in writing, they represented 'Abdu'l-Bahá as an ambitious, a self-willed, an unprincipled and pitiless usurper, Who had deliberately disregarded the testamentary instructions of His Father; Who had, in language intentionally veiled and ambiguous, assumed a rank co-equal with the Manifestation Himself; Who in His communications with the West was beginning to claim to be the return of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who had come "in the glory of the Father"; Who, in His letters to the Indian believers, was proclaiming Himself as the promised Shah Bahram, and arrogating to Himself the right to interpret the writing of His Father, to inaugurate a new Dispensation, and to share with Him the Most Great Infallibility, the exclusive prerogative of the holders of the prophetic office." (Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 248)

These are really shameful accusations against the Master. But the Guardian does not shrink from repeating them. Rather, he uses them to show that the Cause has a conquering spirit.

"To the charges of Nihilism, of heresy, of Muhammadan Gnosticism, of immorality, of Occultism and Communism so freely leveled against them, the undismayed victims of such outrageous denunciations, acting under the instructions of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, retorted by initiating a series of activities which by their very nature were to be the precursors of permanent, officially recognized administrative institutions." (Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 83)

Such criticisms actually increased the health and development of the Baha'i community, as the Guardian states in that last passage. I think we should learn to be comfortable with wide latitude in comments about the Faith.

And, the critic will be reminded of this sound and profound guidance:

"Nowhere but in the purity of its precepts, the sublimity of its standards, the integrity of its laws, the reasonableness of its claims, the comprehensiveness of its scope, the universality of its program, the flexibility of its institutions, the lives of its founders, the heroism of its martyrs, and the transforming power of its influence, should the unprejudiced observer seek to obtain the true criterion that can enable him to fathom its mysteries or to estimate its virtue." (Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 54)

Brent

[onepence]

I came to this site seeking safety and refuge from the storm.
I saw the term Baha'i and no disclaimers
no "stickys" describing policy
I thought finally some degree of safety.

If the unbelievers are allowed to post
freely upon all boards
what type of safety is that for me?

none I say
none all at
the storm will go on
unabated
He said she said
what is false is true and what is true is false
yackety yack yack blah blah blah

ad nausea
makes me freaking sick I say

I really don't know
what well become of me now

As stated
for what feels like a thousand times
seekers should have a forum
Baha'is in good standing should have a forum
exBaha'is should have a forum
all seperate but equal


Or some sort of sticky on the discussion site
not on the about this site .... whoever reads that first ???
not buried in the small print on some back page
but up front ... so people like myself ...
will not be expecting safety
they will not expect good fellowship

that way we can have the same old same old
as every other place on this lesser world.

oneness
the apostle dean

[Baha'i Warrior]

like the heinous attacks on the Faith perpetrated by outsiders

Can you point me to any examples? Please post the URLs and describe which specific posts you think should be deleted.

Thanks, -Jonah

The user epierce on in this topic: <http://bahai-library.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?t=925&start=26>:

Most Baha'is are undisciplined "spiritual junkies" when it comes time to make real sacrifices for a teaching/consolidation project. they only want the "glory", they don't want to do the "hard work".

Comment: "Most Baha'is are undisciplined 'spiritual junkies'"? Not only is this a calumnious statement, but obviously misinformed. If it were the case that "most Baha'is" don't make "real sacrifices for a teaching/consolidation project," then how could the Baha'i Faith be one of the fastest growing world religions? (Of course this person also denies that the Baha'i Faith is one of the fastest growing world religions, despite statistics showing that it is one of the fastest growing NRMs which he ignores.) These are just "fighting words," part of his campaign to slander and malign the Faith's intentions.

Most of the "teaching fetish" (dysfunctional expression of the need to find "converts") is apparently caused by a groping for some answer, even a bad one, for various questions that are caused by "cognitiive dissonance" when they notice things that have internal logic, but are contradictory to some other element of the belief system.

I don't know which is more offensive: the offensive usage of the phrase "teaching fetish," or the unenlightened comments about the teaching processs.

The UHJ's clear instructions to Baha'is concerning teaching and entry by troops:

"We have every encouragement to believe that large-scale enrolments will expand, involving village after village, town after town, from one country to another. However, it is not for us to wait passively for the ultimate fulfilment of Shoghi Effendi's vision. We few, placing our whole trust in the providence of God and regarding as a divine privilege the challenges which face us, must proceed to victory with the plans in hand."

So why tolerate or allow such scornful and damaging comments by outsiders (or even insiders) that can undermine that? A Baha'i forum is not meant to harbor such malignant views. Allowing such ideas to be expressed can only undermine this process and cause severe damage as this is quite an accessible site frequented by many seekers (and also many Baha'is, who may also be affected).

Jonah: I can provide you with more quotes if that's what you want, but all the posts are basically an attack on the Baha'i Faith from someone who disenrolled and has come back to a Baha'i forum to dispute with the Baha'is.

The point I'm getting at is the same as Onepence's: why let such discussions go on in a Baha'i forum? A Baha'i forum in most people's minds equates with a forum of Baha'i ideas/discussion of Baha'i topics, not unpleasant attacks on the Faith from those that have become somehow embittered by their ex-Baha'i communities.

—Warrior

<i>[<b>Note from moderator:</b> BW, I do see that Eric's two statements could read as offensive, but they also don't seem to be attacks on the institutions, direct attacks on individuals, or statements in clear contravention of Baha'i teachings (e.g. the phrases "spiritual junkies" and "teaching fetish" are clealy rhetorical and substantively meaningless, and I don't think think these two statements, weighed against the whole body of literature seekers will be exposed to, will cause anyone to turn away from the Faith). Eric has defended these rhetorical statements (below), others have posted another responses (below), and now I'll lock the thread. -J.W.]</i>

[onepence]

Richard,

Wow ... thank you for your letter ... and yes I am in a lot of pain at the moment ... for one of the rare few occasions I take a leadership position in policy matters and I have doubts if my position is correct or if my leadership is desired, let alone why I seek policy change ... in some cases it is what it is ... i adore the seekers ... wow ... so much hope to find somewhere the true Joseph ... and even exBaha'i I recognize needs what we all yearn for, ... namely His Love ... so I can understand how seekers Baha'is and exBaha'is desire association with each other ... and perhaps this forum is too small to be divided equally into some categories ... perhaps I am being selfish in wanting such categories ... I really don't know and frankly I am losing the ablity to care ... and that is what is making me even sader, the norion, the reality, tha I really don't care anymore ... and I know I should care, if I don't care than those who seek for us to not care about the Administrative Order ... well ... ...

I ramble on some times don't I ... lol ... thanks for trying to cheer me up ... I can only pray that when I am in my 70's i will have the courage to stretch forth my hand to those who are in need of healing as you have so graciously done for me. ... thank you ... your wisdom shall not be forgotten.

oneness
dh

[Sean H.]

like the heinous attacks on the Faith perpetrated by outsiders

Can you point me to any examples? Please post the URLs and describe which specific posts you think should be deleted.

Thanks, -Jonah

The user epierce on in this topic: <http://bahai-library.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?t=925&start=26>:

Most Baha'is are undisciplined "spiritual junkies" when it comes time to make real sacrifices for a teaching/consolidation project. they only want the "glory", they don't want to do the "hard work".

Comment: "Most Baha'is are undisciplined 'spiritual junkies'"? Not only is this a calumnious statement, but obviously misinformed.

As usual, you are decontextualizing, distorting and misrepresenting.

(Your apparent goal is to make people conform to a version of Baha'i culture that is based on fanaticism.)

What I'm saying is that the most Baha'is are incapable of exercising proper "detachment" in the middle of a mass teaching project. This is what I was told by the leaders of such projects!

Most Baha'is have not been taught discipline, as is obvious from your posts. They can't resist the "spiritual high" from getting in the middle of a mass conversion project for selfish purposes (as well as the social status of "converting" people), and the leaders of such projects have to create "firewalls" to prevent the projects from being "polluted" by people that are acting more out of "spiritual self-gratification" than out of self-sacrifice.

The Baha'i writings warn against "attachment to the Kingdom of Names", which is basically "spiritual materialism" (I think Baba Ram Dass coined the term).

If it were the case that "most Baha'is" don't make "real sacrifices for a teaching/consolidation project," then how could the Baha'i Faith be one of the fastest growing world religions?

Again, you are taking my statements out of context and misrepresenting their meaning.

The pattern of fanaticism is extremely revealing.

(Of course this person also denies that the Baha'i Faith is one of the fastest growing world religions, despite statistics showing that it is one of the fastest growing NRMs which he ignores.)

Again, you are taking my statements out of context and misrepresenting their meaning.

The pattern of fanaticism is extremely revealing.

"world religions" != "NRM".

Whose statistics? Unless validated by a reputable outside research group, I wouldn't trust internal Baha'i statistics any further than I could throw them, there is just too much bias and fanaticism to trust them.

There are 5 million muslims in the USA, and maybe (being incredibly generous), 150,000-200,000 Baha'is.

These are just "fighting words," part of his campaign to slander and malign the Faith's intentions.

What I am doing is pointing out my experiences with conformism, abuses of authority, fanaticism, etc. in Bahai culture.

You have conflated "culture" with "Faith".

You don't seem to realize that the usual tacics used to internally terrorize non-conformists have no effect on people that have resigned (or, in my case, attempted to resign).

Most of the "teaching fetish" (dysfunctional expression of the need to find "converts") is apparently caused by a groping for some answer, even a bad one, for various questions that are caused by "cognitiive dissonance" when they notice things that have internal logic, but are contradictory to some other element of the belief system.

I don't know which is more offensive: the offensive usage of the phrase "teaching fetish," or the unenlightened comments about the teaching processs.

Any competent sociologist would realize there is a "teaching fetish" after spending 15 mintes in a typical Baha'i community.

That is a direct (private) quote from a progressional Baha'i sociologist.

You apparently don't understand the "reality distortion effect" that is caused by conformism.

People will open up about all sorts of interesting things to people like me that are open non-conformists that they would never say in "public".

In any case, the incessant rhetoric about "teaching" (for non-Baha'is, "teaching" is Baha'i-speak for "getting converts") is depressing for a lot of people because of the disconnect from doing the obvious things to make the community attractive enough to either interest many people, or hold onto the ones that do convert.

The branwashing, fetishes, conformism, fanaticism, obsession with dehumanizing bureaucratic solutions instead of "getting real", etc., are the actual problems, not some non-conformists/critics pointing out the obvious problems and the inability of Baha'is to grapple with them.

The UHJ's clear instructions to Baha'is concerning teaching and entry by troops:

"We have every encouragement to believe that large-scale enrolments will expand, involving village after village, town after town, from one country to another. However, it is not for us to wait passively for the ultimate fulfilment of Shoghi Effendi's vision. We few, placing our whole trust in the providence of God and regarding as a divine privilege the challenges which face us, must proceed to victory with the plans in hand."

In reality that is not "factually" supportive of your statement/opinion about growth statistics, and we don't even know what the overall context is anyway.

So why tolerate or allow such scornful and damaging comments by outsiders (or even insiders) that can undermine that? A Baha'i forum is not meant to harbor such malignant views. Allowing such ideas to be expressed can only undermine this process and cause severe damage as this is quite an accessible site frequented by many seekers (and also many Baha'is, who may also be affected).

What causes the most "real" damage is when Baha'is exhibit clear and egregious fanaticism/intolerance, and engage in absurd misrepresentations of what critics and non-conformists are saying.

Jonah: I can provide you with more quotes if that's what you want, but all the posts are basically an attack on the Baha'i Faith from someone who disenrolled and has come back to a Baha'i forum to dispute with the Baha'is.

No, I'm pointing out the existence of abuse, fanaticism and intolerance in the Bahai community. You are greatly assisting me in proving my point.

The Universal House of Justice instructed Baha'is to "contribute to integrative paradigms", that is what I'm interested in, not being attacked by narrow-minded, intolerant fanatics.

You apparently have no interest in "integrative paradigms".

The point I'm getting at is the same as Onepence's: why let such discussions go on in a Baha'i forum?

Jonah has addressed the point quite well.

A Baha'i forum in most people's minds equates with a forum of Baha'i ideas/discussion of Baha'i topics, not unpleasant attacks on the Faith from those that have become somehow embittered by their ex-Baha'i communities.

—Warrior

You and onepence (Dean Hedges) simply didn't bother to read the purpose/history of this list and made assumptions that are wildly incorrect.

I hope you are starting to get some glimmer of insight into the fact that Baha'i belief is not as monolithic as you apparently have been conditioned to think.

Regards,
Eric

[onepence]

....

You and onepence (Dean Hedges) simply didn't bother to read the purpose/history of this list and made assumptions that are wildly incorrect.

...

Regards,
Eric

It is unfortunate that viewrs like myself had to find out the hard way that this site is not necessarily owned and/or moderated by members of the Baha'i Faith ... now that I know I will do my best to pass on this information to others ... as far as your "attempt to resign" ... lol .. man can you do anything sucessfully? ... lol

oneness
the apostle dean

[onepence]

Eric does bring up some points ... about enrollment ... was just reading some talks by Dr. Peter Khan, a member of The Universal House of Justice ... he speaks about "People who look superficially at the Bahá'í Faith are likely to become very condemnatory about what we are doing." ...


http://bahaistudies.net/khan2003.html

Dr. Khan does make an interesting point ... of somewhat related thought ...

"The reason I wanted this question period was that I
feel it is very important that when somebody from the
institutions at the World Centre visits the friends in
any country, that a precious part of our religion is
the right of any believer to ask anything they wish of
the administrators of the Cause. So do feel free, I
don't mind what you ask. If it is something that I feel
is sensitive or private of confidential, I have no
inhibition about saying so. If it is something I can
answer, I will certainly try and do so. So don´t feel
any embarrassment – if there is anything you want to
know and I can help you with, feel free to ask."

..........

oneness
dh

[Jonah]

Thanks for everyone's interest in the topic. I think it's time to close it.

I hope all sides can agree that a wide range of opinion, from Eric's to Onepence's, has been expressed here and none of it has "censored". In the future, I might be tempted to use the delete key if conversations reach this level of acrimony.

Thank you for your understanding, -Jonah

P.S. I inserted a response to Eric and BW above, at the end of BW's post http://bahai-library.com/forum2/viewtop ... =4995#4995