[LOCKED] Question : LSA's Rulers

[onepence~2]

Question :

Within current Baha'i Administration, is it acceptable for an LSA to appoint a Ruler ?

for instance, a LSA wants to keep official time for some events ...

say like at public comments at Feast

or

perhaps even at a track and field met or some sports event.

could the LSA appoint said official ... and could either the LSA or the specified individual declare person as

" Ruler of Time " ?

?????

????

comments welcomed

thanks

[BritishBahai]

what?? im confused.

Thats the whole point of the chairman...

I dont understand your question.

[coatofmanycolours]

"Within current Baha'i Administration, is it acceptable for an LSA to appoint a Ruler ?"

Onepence; "current" Administration? Are you hinting at a revision?

And why would anyone want to suggest that an LSA had power over politics?

That is not its function.

You have a gift for subtle suggestions.

-Peter

[onepence~2]

"Within current Baha'i Administration, is it acceptable for an LSA to appoint a Ruler ?"

Onepence; "current" Administration? Are you hinting at a revision?

And why would anyone want to suggest that an LSA had power over politics?

That is not its function.

You have a gift for subtle suggestions.

-Peter

no no no

no gift for subtle suggestions

we are alluding to a difference between LSA and House of Justice
and wherewith we believe that the only legitimate legal way a LSA can become a House of Justice
is by amendment to The Constitution of The Universal House of Justice

so no subtle suggestions

just basic observation that there is a difference , if nothing more than name,
between a House of Justice and an LSA

and if there is essentially no difference between an LSA and a House of Justice , other than Name
then do all the Powers and Authority of a House of Justice conveyed within The Kitab-i-Aqdas are also
the Powers and Authority of an LSA

Can only a House of Justice appoint a Ruler ?

Can a LSA appoint a Ruler ?

that is the basic question ...

granted ... the implications to this question is enormous ...

if a LSA can appoint a Ruler ... well ... WOW

we theoretically could have a Ruler of Education
a Ruler of Agriculture
a Ruler of Marriage
a Ruler of Fiance
a Ruler of This That and The Other Thing

and then subset of Questions about procedure for the various Rulers

enormous question

"Within current Baha'i Administration, is it acceptable for a LSA to appoint a Ruler ?"

[coatofmanycolours]

Onepence; Sorry for my mistake. I do not have very much experience on
this site and the very idea that someone would try to hurt the Baha'i Faith,
is painful to me.

I was trying to read between the lines and am quite capable of making an
error in trying to discern the motives of other writers.

take care; Peter

[onepence~2]

Onepence; Sorry for my mistake. I do not have very much experience on
this site and the very idea that someone would try to hurt the Baha'i Faith,
is painful to me.

I was trying to read between the lines and am quite capable of making an
error in trying to discern the motives of other writers.

take care; Peter

i often have had the same mistake ...

especially at this site ...

i actually got so caught up in my fears,
that i eventually hurt myself
and many many others

for me ... i defiantely regret some of my past mistakes ...
here
elsewhere

especially here ...

in my heart ... there shall always be a special place
for the prisoners of our Faith

[Sen McGlinn]

the question (I think) is whether an LSA can delegate some of its authority to an individual, to act with authority in the Bahai community. I think the answer is a very qualified yes, since LSAs do for example appoint chairpeople to the feast, and they elect their own officers such as the treasurer who, if the assembly is incorporated, may have legally recognised authority.

It's a qualified yes because it is pro-tem delegated authority, not an authority they have in their own person. Any community member at any time can go over their head to the LSA and dispute a decision, or say the person appointed is unfit. The LSA is not able to surrender any of its authority, but it can delegate the exercise of its authority.

LSAs can also establish other legal entities that have a particular function: a school board, or a charitable trust. And between that they can appoint a committee that is not a legal entity but is tasked to implement some of the LSA's responsiblity - a feast committee for example.

[onepence~2]

"The LSA is not able to surrender any of its authority, but it can delegate the exercise of its authority."

basically we agree ...

would capitalize first authority

The LSA is not able to surrender any of its Authority, but it can delegate the exercise of its authority.

[onepence~2]

"LSAs can also establish other legal entities that have a particular function"

that is at the heart of what i am trying to understand ...

if we use the term "Ruler" as a legal term from The Kitab-i-Aqdas does the LSA have {a legal} Authority to appoint a Ruler ?

or because The Kitab-i-Aqdas legally uses terms like Houses of Justice that lsas do not appoint Rulers ?

???

???

i suppose i am sorta caught in a personal mind trap ...
similar to the Pharisees of old ...
how they only understood the words ... not the Spirit of The Law

because in essence ... whatever a lsa decides is correct ...

but, still ,

Can a LSA appoint a Ruler as defined by The Kitab-i-Aqdas ...

or,

because enforcement of The Law presides with The Universal House of Justice,
no appoints at this time can be made

???
???

now ... i am more confused than ever ... at first i was thinking yes ...
now i am thinking no ...

perhaps no is the correct answer ...

q deals with application of Law

[onepence~2]

q deals with application of Law

answer

should also dwell into serving in the Spirit of the Law

[Sen McGlinn]

"LSAs can also establish other legal entities that have a particular function"
that is at the heart of what i am trying to understand ...
if we use the term "Ruler" as a legal term from The Kitab-i-Aqdas does the LSA have {a legal} Authority to appoint a Ruler ?
or because The Kitab-i-Aqdas legally uses terms like Houses of Justice that lsas do not appoint Rulers ?
???

The LSAs and NSAs and UHJ are the "rulers of Baha" : they can and do appoint people to exercise their authority.

The difference of name is only for external purposes: the Guardian writes:

"That the Spiritual Assemblies of today will be replaced in time by the Houses of Justice, and are to all intents and purposes identical and not separate bodies, is abundantly confirmed by 'Abdu'l-Bahá Himself. ... For reasons which are not difficult to discover, it has been found advisable to bestow upon the elected representatives of Bahá'í communities throughout the world the temporary appellation of Spiritual Assemblies, a term which, as the position and aims of the Bahá'í Faith are better understood and more fully recognized, will gradually be superseded by the permanent and more appropriate designation of House of Justice."
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 6)

Since the reason for this temporary name is to prevent misunderstandings in the outside world, and it will be changed when the Faith is better understood in the world, there is no reason why the name should make any difference at all to the way the LSA functions in the community or the way it appoints its officers, consults etc.. These are all internal matters, and the Spiritual Assemblies, since the are to all intents and purposes identical with House of Justice, already operate in the way a House of Justice does. That includes delegating the exercise of some authorities

~~ Sen McGlinn

[onepence~2]

"The LSAs and NSAs and UHJ are the "rulers of Baha" : they can and do appoint people to exercise their authority. "

yes ... this supreme theocracy is beginning to shape within our mind ...

within our theocracy there is judicial, executive, and legislative functions

each are intertwined with each other on local national and international levels

the learned {body politic,community,legislators}

elects the judicial {house}

which appoints executive {ruler}

do not know if the above description is accurate or not ...
just trying to wrap my mind around some concepts ...

further thought is needed ...

any input appreciated ...

side note ... our Faith creates a supreme theocracy of constitutional monarchy ...
{yes,no,maybe}

[Sen McGlinn]

"The LSAs and NSAs and UHJ are the "rulers of Baha" : they can and do appoint people to exercise their authority. "

yes ... this supreme theocracy is beginning to shape within our mind ...
within our theocracy there is judicial, executive, and legislative functions
each are intertwined with each other on local national and international levels
the learned {body politic,community,legislators}
elects the judicial {house}
which appoints executive {ruler}
... side note ... our Faith creates a supreme theocracy of constitutional monarchy ...
{yes,no,maybe}

I think you've got it royally mixed up. The judicial, executive, and legislative are functions of the civil government, in western (and now virtually world-wide) political theory. They exist at local and national and according to the Guardian will eventually exist at a global level, as part of the commonwealth of nations. But that's a civil government: in the Guardian's descriptions of it there is no mention at all of the Houses of Justice or Assemblies. (see eg: http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/WOB/ ... html#pg203 )

We also have an Administrative Order, which is a government of the religious community, by the religious community, in religious and community matters. This does not separate the judicial, executive, and legislative; rather it separates the liturgical (House of Worship), the doctrinal (the Guardianship) and its extensions for propagation and protection, known collectively as the Learned of Baha, and the 'legislative' which is also the religious judiciary (the House of Justice both makes the laws and is the highest court of appeal for Bahais), known collectively as the Rulers of Baha. And it also has the function of "Head of the Faith' which was held first by the Guardian and now by the UHJ, and entails "authority" - something like the executive in the civil government. For example, the Guardian is the head and sole member of the doctrinal arm (though he has assistants), and he often refused to "legislate" on matters, saying instead that the future Universal House of Justice would have to decide. Nevertheless, when he gave instructions to NSAs and individuals, they had to be obeyed; only they did not become part of Bahai law. And now, when the UHJ gives instructions, they have to be obeyed (only they do not become part of Bahai doctrine). So instead of three distinct judicial, executive, and legislative arms, as in the commonwealth of nations, in the Bahai Commonwealth we have the House of Worship, the Guardianship and the House of Justice, representing Liturgy, Doctrine and Law, and another function, the executive, which we call "Head of the Faith," and which was performed first by the Guardian and now by the UHJ.

That means that in the World Order model, you need not three but six different categories: the civil three of Legislative/executive/judiciary, the religious three of worship/doctrine/law, and then plus two: "Head of the Faith" and "Sovereignty." The sovereignty of a nation can be embodied in a monarchy, or a presidency, or in some other form: the ideal form of government is a constitutional monarchy but that ideal has to embodied in the material actually available in a nation, its history, culture, existing institutions etc.

If you start with this six-plus-two model and read the Writings, putting each bit into the appropriate box, you'll find the writings are quite clear and not (very) hard to understand. The difficulties Bahais have arise largely from trying to impose preconceived categories on the Writings, and to a lesser extent by the difficulties of the Guardian's prose, some awkward or bad translations etc. But really, if you get the basic architecture right, it is simple and non-contradictory; and that's how you know that the architecture is right -- if you try some other model it looks contradictory and confusing.

More on this on my blog at:
http://tinyurl.com/twocommonwealths
http://tinyurl.com/worldorderelections
http://tinyurl.com/amursiyasiyyeh


~~ Sen McGlinn

[onepence~2]

...

That means that in the World Order model, you need not three but six different categories: the civil three of Legislative/executive/judiciary, the religious three of worship/doctrine/law, and then plus two: "Head of the Faith" and "Sovereignty." The sovereignty of a nation can be embodied in a monarchy, or a presidency, or in some other form: the ideal form of government is a constitutional monarchy but that ideal has to embodied in the material actually available in a nation, its history, culture, existing institutions etc.

If you start with this six-plus-two model and read the Writings, putting each bit into the appropriate box, you'll find the writings are quite clear and not (very) hard to understand. The difficulties Bahais have arise largely from trying to impose preconceived categories on the Writings, and to a lesser extent by the difficulties of the Guardian's prose, some awkward or bad translations etc. But really, if you get the basic architecture right, it is simple and non-contradictory; and that's how you know that the architecture is right -- if you try some other model it looks contradictory and confusing.

More on this on my blog at:
http://tinyurl.com/twocommonwealths
http://tinyurl.com/worldorderelections
http://tinyurl.com/amursiyasiyyeh


~~ Sen McGlinn

hmmm ...

some excellent discussion / thought upon this thread ...

thank you to all participating ...

yet ... we are not very comfortable with the this idea of a six-plus-two model ...
theoretically ... yeah ... maybe ... six-plus-two model ...
but we are no way totally convinced that this is the only and/or accurate model of understanding ...

instead we would propose that the six categories are really only three
the civil three of Legislative/executive/judiciary, the religious three of worship/doctrine/law,

perhaps in temporal short term space ...
there is a difference between civil and religious duty and or Law

but in permanent space there can only be Baha'u'llah
thus civil will fade and/or grow into one religious body of Thought

we would equate

Worship with legislate ... ie work is worship ... The Learned
Doctrine with executor ... ie all-glorious Ruler of the universe ... The Elected/Appointed members
Law with judiciary ... ie The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice ... House of Justice

witin this framework judiciary holds power of the executor
{extremely important aspect}

then plus two: "Head of the Faith" and "Sovereignty." is essentially the Doctrine
that in permanent space there can only be God
represented to us by Baha'u'llah as an all-glorious Ruler of the universe
in which , following His Covenant , The Universal House of Justice is His Representation.

"Head of the Faith" and "Sovereignty." can also be symbolically represented by ... *smile*

hmmm

it is a little awkward ... but ... also could be clear ...

unknown how well our descriptive model does or does not work

we know for a fact we do not like a concept of a separation between the civil and the religious
within any framework other than temporal.

oneness
dh

[onepence~2]

irregardless of past performance

with a stroke of His pen

the temporal can become permanent

(i am) / we are

Zion Zion Zion

forever

amen

[brettz9]

Sen, we have already discussed here (as also discussed at http://bahai-library.com/?file=uhj_theocracy ) how the fact that there first being a World Super-state which does not have any relation to the Baha'i Faith does not contradict the other statements in our Writings which indicate that there eventually will be a Baha'i State:

Regarding the question raised in your letter, Shoghi Effendi believes that for the present the Movement, whether in the East or the West, should be dissociated entirely from politics. This was the explicit injunction of `Abdu'l-Bahá... Eventually, however, as you have rightly conceived it, the Movement will, as soon as it is fully developed and recognized, embrace both religious and political issues. In fact Bahá'u'lláh clearly states that affairs of state as well as religious questions are to be referred to the House of Justice into which the Assemblies of the Bahá'ís will eventually evolve. (On behalf of the Guardian, 30 November 1930)

The Bahá'ís will be called upon to assume the reins of government when they will come to constitute the majority of the population in a given country, and even then their participation in political affairs is bound to be limited in scope unless they obtain a similar majority in some other countries as well. (On behalf of the Guardian, 19 November 1939)

The Bahá'ís must remain non-partisan in all political affairs. In the distant future, however, when the majority of a country have become Bahá'ís then it will lead to the establishment of a Bahá'í State. (On behalf of the Guardian, 19 April 1941)

Moreover, constitutional monarchy is not seen as the ideal form of government forever:

"One of the signs of the maturity of the world is that no one will accept to bear the weight of kingship. Kingship will remain with none willing to bear alone its weight. That day will be the day whereon wisdom will be manifested among mankind."

(Note 194 to the Kitab-i-Aqdas)

There's no room for ambiguity here. Further dwelling on this, or linking to blog posts which do the same, will not be accepted here. This is your last warning.

Brett

[Sen McGlinn]

... there first being a World Super-state which does not have any relation to the Baha'i Faith does not contradict the other statements in our Writings which indicate that there eventually will be a Baha'i State:...
There's no room for ambiguity here. Further dwelling on this, or linking to blog posts which do the same, will not be accepted here. This is your last warning.
Brett

?
did I ever say that there would not be a Bahai State?
That's explicit in the Writings, which also tell us a good deal about how it should work.
Read what I have actually written, in an unprejudiced way.
Don't rely on what someone says I say: "people say" is an unreliable source.

When kingship persists, but none bears the weight alone, that is known as democracy (sovereignty borne by the people). If it includes a monarch, it is known as constitutional monarchy.

The point about the Bahá'being called upon to assume the reins of government when they will come to constitute the majority of the population in a given country, is perfectly in line with Abdu'l-Baha's instruction, which I have often highlighted and quoted:

O thou servant of Baha'! Thou hast asked regarding the political affairs. In the United States it is necessary that the citizens shall take part in elections. This is a necessary matter and no excuse from it is possible. My object in telling the believers that they should not interfere in the affairs of government is this: That they should not make any trouble and that they should not move against the opinion of the government, but obedience to the laws and the administration of the commonwealth is necessary. Now, as the government of America is a republican form of government, it is necessary that all the citizens shall take part in the elections of officers and take part in the affairs of the republic.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha v2, p. 342)

I devoted a section to this, and some practicalities about how to achieve it, in _Church and State_, and I've often discussed it. I won't put the links up since that seems to be bad for your blood pressure, but if you google "Sen McGlinn" "affairs of the republic" it will pop up. The key seems to me to be distinguishing between ideological political parties and the organised representation of the various interests in society in decision-making.

I really find the pattern of response that you have just exhibited baffling, and frustrating. I try to write clearly, giving quotes, using the strongest authentic texts I can find, making every assumption and connection explicit, and drawing clear conclusions. Yet apparently capable readers keep attributing ideas and intentions to me that I've never had, or even argued against, and I don't know why they do this. I've been told I advocate a doctrinal role for the Mashriq -- but I'm explicitly against that, that's the Guardian's role. One person says I "advocate bigamy." Another says I argue that the 'consensus of the faithful' has some role as a source of Bahai teachings - another p.o.v I've often argued AGAINST not for. Now you apparently think I've argued against the eventual "bahai state." I never have said that, it's in your imagination. But WHY is it in your imagination? Why do you need to imagine that about me? Why not deal with what I really write and say?

[BritishBahai]

.
.
.
I devoted a section to this, and some practicalities about how to achieve it, in _Church and State_, and I've often discussed it. I won't put the links up since that seems to be bad for your blood pressure, but if you google "Sen McGlinn" "affairs of the republic" it will pop up. The key seems to me to be distinguishing between ideological political parties and the organised representation of the various interests in society in decision-making.

I really find the pattern of response that you have just exhibited baffling, and frustrating. I try to write clearly, giving quotes, using the strongest authentic texts I can find, making every assumption and connection explicit, and drawing clear conclusions. Yet apparently capable readers keep attributing ideas and intentions to me that I've never had, or even argued against, and I don't know why they do this. I've been told I advocate a doctrinal role for the Mashriq -- but I'm explicitly against that, that's the Guardian's role. One person says I "advocate bigamy." Another says I argue that the 'consensus of the faithful' has some role as a source of Bahai teachings - another p.o.v I've often argued AGAINST not for. Now you apparently think I've argued against the eventual "bahai state." I never have said that, it's in your imagination. But WHY is it in your imagination? Why do you need to imagine that about me? Why not deal with what I really write and say?

I am locking this thread because the latest reply is resorting to unnecessary personal attacks.
Brettz9 / Jonah (the board Admins) may wish to unlock this thread at their discretion.