seeking comments about explusion from membership.
oneness
the apostle dean
expulsion from membership
-
Dorumerosaer
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 3:15 am
- Location: Germany
- Contact:
Expulsion from membership as I understand it, is neither deprivation of administrative rights, nor expulsion as a Covenant-breaker. It is removal from the Cause, spiritually and administratively. I asked a member of the House of Justice about this, and if memory serves correctly he said that this action by the House of Justice was based on an action taken by Shoghi Effendi. He said that the Guardian said that Baha'u'llah said in His Writings to "leave that soul to himself" and the Guardian interpreted this, in this instance, to mean removal from the Faith. It does not carry the onus of Covenant-breaking; there is no instruction to shun the person.
Brent
Brent
-
Dorumerosaer
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 3:15 am
- Location: Germany
- Contact:
The short answer is I don't know. I don't know the whole scope of what's going on in the worldwide Baha'i community; I don't know how many peole have been removed from the community; I don't know if any of the three people I know of who were removed from the community has applied for reinstatement or not.
I am confident that in principle there is absolutely no reason why such a person could not apply and be reinstated. But I know of nothing stating this; only the quotes I posted in another thread about reinstatement of Covenant-breakers, and these people are not Covenant-breakers, so they surely can also be reinstated.
Is that responsive to your question?
Brent
I am confident that in principle there is absolutely no reason why such a person could not apply and be reinstated. But I know of nothing stating this; only the quotes I posted in another thread about reinstatement of Covenant-breakers, and these people are not Covenant-breakers, so they surely can also be reinstated.
Is that responsive to your question?
Brent
pilgrimbrent wrote: ...
Is that responsive to your question?
Brent
yes Brent ... that does nicely ... I am also curious about the Iranian Baha'is who had to lie to get out of Iran ... where they concidered expelled from the Faith ... I had read where they had to apply{?} to be reinstated {?}
Do you know what I am referring to ... am I using the correct terminology ...
I sort of thought of them after I asked my question ... in fact I almost deleted my question ...
oneness
dh
-
Dorumerosaer
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 3:15 am
- Location: Germany
- Contact:
That was a very different situation.
Intentionally denying one's faith is considered a very base deed for a Baha'i, and I *heard* that some of the Baha'is who did this to escape Iran had their administrative rights removed. This IS NOT expulsion from the Cause. This is a deprivation of the priviliges of Baha'i membership, such as giving to the Fund, participating in Baha'i elections, attending Baha'i-only meetings, going on Pilgrimage, being voted for in a Baha'i election, being a speaker at an official Baha'i function, and the like.
And at some point after their administrative rights were removed, some of these believers began to apply to the House of Justice for reinstatement of their administrative rights. I *heard* that the House of Justice at a certain point stated that it was not considering those applications at that time. So they had no alternative but to wait. I do not know if that policy has changed, or if I even heard it correctly. Please do not accept this as authoritative.
Brent
Intentionally denying one's faith is considered a very base deed for a Baha'i, and I *heard* that some of the Baha'is who did this to escape Iran had their administrative rights removed. This IS NOT expulsion from the Cause. This is a deprivation of the priviliges of Baha'i membership, such as giving to the Fund, participating in Baha'i elections, attending Baha'i-only meetings, going on Pilgrimage, being voted for in a Baha'i election, being a speaker at an official Baha'i function, and the like.
And at some point after their administrative rights were removed, some of these believers began to apply to the House of Justice for reinstatement of their administrative rights. I *heard* that the House of Justice at a certain point stated that it was not considering those applications at that time. So they had no alternative but to wait. I do not know if that policy has changed, or if I even heard it correctly. Please do not accept this as authoritative.
Brent
ooooo... the legalese eeee... *crazy smile* ... soft chuckle ... actually was reading on another website about the By-Laws ... are there any other types of classifications ?? ... I mean so far we have the concepts of Covenant Breakers, administrative rights removed, expulsion from membership ... are there any other types of classification ... and in general what do we call these concepts ... in old world terminology it is something akin to the lines of criminal code ... but in the Baha'i world do we have a general term to describe this legalise we are discusing ... a broad general term ... like subsection of Administrative Orders Rights and Privilages ????
oneness
the apostle dean
oneness
the apostle dean
-
Dorumerosaer
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 3:15 am
- Location: Germany
- Contact:
hmmmm ... i guess one way to define the broad general term/s would be ...
Membership in the Baha'i Community
subsection a,b,c
of The Constitution of the Universal House of Justice
... but of course, at this time The Constitution of the Universal House of Justice has only the By Laws ... not the subsections that I envision.
Membership in the Baha'i Community
subsection a,b,c
of The Constitution of the Universal House of Justice
... but of course, at this time The Constitution of the Universal House of Justice has only the By Laws ... not the subsections that I envision.
-
Dorumerosaer
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 3:15 am
- Location: Germany
- Contact:
I am not sure that the a,b,c that you or I would come up with, would be the same as the definitions the Universal House of Justice would make -- or if it would make such a definition at all. Often it refrains from making definitions, because of the general principle explained by the Guardian:
As regards the "Administrative Manual": he urges you to not add to the rules and regulations, but try to cut down on these and decide cases as they arise; there is a natural tendency to codify the teachings and produce handbooks of procedure, there are not enough Bahá'ís in the whole world to justify this, and he continuously urges the various National Spiritual Assemblies to beware of this tendency.(From a letter dated 19 June 1953 written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to the National Spiritual Assembly of Central America; from the Compilation on the National Spiritual Assembly; The Compilation of Compilations vol II, p. 127)
Also the Universal House of Justice has written:
"... the believers must recognize the importance of intellectual honesty and humility. In past dispensations many errors arose because the believers in God's Revelation were overanxious to encompass the Divine Message within the framework of their limited understanding, to define doctrines where definition was beyond their power, to explain mysteries which only the wisdom and experience of a later age would make comprehensible, to argue that something was true because it appeared desirable and necessary. Such compromises with essential truth, such intellectual pride, we must scrupulously avoid."
(The Universal House of Justice, Messages 1963 to 1986, p. 87, paragraph 35.11
It is very late, so I'm not thinking very clearly, but I think that sometimes the House of Justice does not want to make definitions or codes of laws; and sometimes when it does make definitions, and exercises its power to develop Baha'i jurisprudence, the definitions it comes up with are quite different than we ordinary Baha'is might expect. The decisions of the House are, after all, divine Mind at work.
Brent
As regards the "Administrative Manual": he urges you to not add to the rules and regulations, but try to cut down on these and decide cases as they arise; there is a natural tendency to codify the teachings and produce handbooks of procedure, there are not enough Bahá'ís in the whole world to justify this, and he continuously urges the various National Spiritual Assemblies to beware of this tendency.(From a letter dated 19 June 1953 written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to the National Spiritual Assembly of Central America; from the Compilation on the National Spiritual Assembly; The Compilation of Compilations vol II, p. 127)
Also the Universal House of Justice has written:
"... the believers must recognize the importance of intellectual honesty and humility. In past dispensations many errors arose because the believers in God's Revelation were overanxious to encompass the Divine Message within the framework of their limited understanding, to define doctrines where definition was beyond their power, to explain mysteries which only the wisdom and experience of a later age would make comprehensible, to argue that something was true because it appeared desirable and necessary. Such compromises with essential truth, such intellectual pride, we must scrupulously avoid."
(The Universal House of Justice, Messages 1963 to 1986, p. 87, paragraph 35.11
It is very late, so I'm not thinking very clearly, but I think that sometimes the House of Justice does not want to make definitions or codes of laws; and sometimes when it does make definitions, and exercises its power to develop Baha'i jurisprudence, the definitions it comes up with are quite different than we ordinary Baha'is might expect. The decisions of the House are, after all, divine Mind at work.
Brent
wow ... Our Guardian certainly knows this servants heart ...
... cuz ... I certainly have "a natural tendency to codify the teachings"
smile ... chuckeling softly ... I do like the term Baha'i jurisprudence ... I suppose i might study that term/thought more someday... and lol ... I am sure I will have lots of questions,opinions and thoughts when I do ... lol ...
thanks for helping to clarify up some issues ...
back to the issue of "explusion from membership"
would we/you say whether the Administrative Order or the individual disenrolls all "explusion from membership" is voluntary ...
that is to say to some minds a distinction is made between individual disenrollment and Administraive disenrollment/explusion ...
are the terms "disenrollment" and "explusion" similiar enough to be, for all intents and purposes pratically the same ... or is there such a big difference that people will forever try to make the distinction between the two ...
yes, yes, yes ... I know ... one action is initiated by the Administrative Order and the other is initiated by an individual ... but when action for explusion/disenrollment is taken by the Administrative Order it is in response to the voluntary action that was/is initiated by the individual.
Are all explusion/disenrollment voluntary?
Are the terms explusion/disenrollment very similiar ?
Can one can voluntary ask the Administrative Order to be considered as one that has been expelled from the Faith? is that what people mean when they disenroll?
oneness
the apostle dean
... cuz ... I certainly have "a natural tendency to codify the teachings"
smile ... chuckeling softly ... I do like the term Baha'i jurisprudence ... I suppose i might study that term/thought more someday... and lol ... I am sure I will have lots of questions,opinions and thoughts when I do ... lol ...
thanks for helping to clarify up some issues ...
back to the issue of "explusion from membership"
would we/you say whether the Administrative Order or the individual disenrolls all "explusion from membership" is voluntary ...
that is to say to some minds a distinction is made between individual disenrollment and Administraive disenrollment/explusion ...
are the terms "disenrollment" and "explusion" similiar enough to be, for all intents and purposes pratically the same ... or is there such a big difference that people will forever try to make the distinction between the two ...
yes, yes, yes ... I know ... one action is initiated by the Administrative Order and the other is initiated by an individual ... but when action for explusion/disenrollment is taken by the Administrative Order it is in response to the voluntary action that was/is initiated by the individual.
Are all explusion/disenrollment voluntary?
Are the terms explusion/disenrollment very similiar ?
Can one can voluntary ask the Administrative Order to be considered as one that has been expelled from the Faith? is that what people mean when they disenroll?
oneness
the apostle dean
-
Dorumerosaer
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 3:15 am
- Location: Germany
- Contact:
I think again that definitions are being asked of the mind of the individual, that the individual is incapable of making. These are matters for the Head of the Faith, and I personally feel that it is preferable to leave such people to themselves, to ask God to guide them, to realize that no man knows his own end, and to focus on my own spiritual development.