Does a letter from a secretary create a Bahai Teaching?
July 18, 2015“Unity of doctrine is maintained by the existence of the authentic texts of Scripture and the voluminous interpretations of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi, together with the absolute prohibition against anyone propounding “authoritative” or “inspired” interpretations or usurping the function of Guardian. Unity of administration is assured by the authority of the Universal House of Justice.” Universal House of Justice, to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Netherlands, March 9, 1965: Wellspring of Guidance, pp. 52-53
Imagine the very idea of adding more text and calling this a Bahai Teaching? Well when it comes to the topic of homosexuality, this is what some Bahais do. A man who calls himself Dr Johnson, who often comments on my blog, seems to also think that it is a “Bahai Teaching” that masturbation is a bad thing. And so…
I have published Dr Johnson’s comments (link to his comments) because there might be a few Bahais that share these views as to what is a Bahai Teaching. Most of these comments focus on adultery or cheating on one’s spouse, which has nothing to do with a committed same-sex marriage, but the point I wish to make is the he treats texts from letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi as if these are Bahai Teachings and goes so far as to put Shoghi Effendi’s name underneath these.
In the future I will not allow any future comment on my blog where you (Dr Johnson) claim that something is a Bahai Teaching unless you provide a clear quotation from Bahai Scripture (link to what is Bahai Scripture). Expressing your views of the Bahai Teachings as your own personal point of view is fine. You have repeatedly ignored my request to distinguish between the lesser authority of a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi and what you call a Bahai Teaching and so I assume you are consciously doing this.
I am sure that you are aware of the following letter but here it is again: “I wish to call your attention to certain things in “Principles of Bahá’í Administration” which has just reached the Guardian; although the material is good, he feels that the complete lack of quotation marks is very misleading. His own words, the words of his various secretaries, even the Words of Bahá’u’lláh Himself, are all lumped together as one text.
This is not only not reverent in the case of Bahá’u’lláh’s Words, but misleading. Although the secretaries of the Guardian convey his thoughts and instructions and these messages are authoritative, their words are in no sense the same as his, their style certainly not the same, and their authority less, for they use their own terms and not his exact words in conveying his messages.
He feels that in any future edition this fault should be remedied, any quotations from Bahá’u’lláh or the Master plainly attributed to them, and the words of the Guardian clearly differentiated from those of his secretaries.”
Letter on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha’i Community, p. 260
There are more letters expressing a similar view (link) – that a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi does not share the same authority as anything penned by Shoghi Effendi himself. And only the Guardian (Shoghi Effendi) was authorized by Abdul-Baha in his Will and Testament to make authorized interpretations of Bahai Scripture. Outside of this it is up to each of us to apply the Bahai Teachings as we think they should be applied and each of us is free to express our own interpretations as personal understandings. Added to this is the authority of the Universal House of Justice to make policy about the practice (social teachings) of the Bahai community. Their 2014 letter makes it clear that a same-sex married couple is not welcome to join the Bahai community let alone able to marry after they join the community. Although whether or not this policy is intended to override the Bahai teaching that the law of the land is to be respected and obeyed by Bahais is not clear to me. However this is Bahai policy not a Bahai Teaching. See my May blog (link) where I critique the first part of this letter by the Universal House of Justice.
So then I ask you and other Bahais who do likewise, why refer to these letters as if these are Bahai Teachings when we have plenty of scripture by Baha’u’llah as well the interpretations by Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi? It seems not only irreverent but actually wrong to place more emphasis on what is in a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi than on what is in Bahai Scripture. And to the point, if there is a contradiction between what is expressed in a letter and what is penned by Baha’u’llah, Adbul-Baha or Shoghi Effendi, then as a Bahai, I choose the later because the principles of justice and equality are more important than anything else.
The Book Lights of Guidance is not a source for Bahai Scripture and if you cannot see this, read my 2014 blog + screenshot here. If you wish to quote from this book and call this a Bahai Teaching, then find the original source in Bahai Scripture.
Here is another blog of mine (link) showing as much of the original context for the 5 letters that mention homosexuality (out of thousands that do not) as I can. Where the letters are shown in full it is very clear to me that the intent of these letters was advice or current policy or to share information but certainly never ever to be confused with the status of Bahai Scripture or a Bahai Teaching.
I will take just one example from something you wrote, Dr Johnson, to show you how in my view it goes against the Teachings of Baha’u’llah to add in letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi as a source for a Bahai Teaching.
You wrote: “When we realize that Bahá’u’lláh says adultery retards the progress of the soul in the after life … “ This text is a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi and I critique this phrase in my September 2013 blog here because there is no source to be found to back up what the secretary wrote. I state that there is no source because if there was one it would be accessible and I am sure that I would have found it by now having access to texts in Persian or Arabic as well as English. The only way I would not have access is if there was a text at the World Centre where I do not have access. I do not think that this is likely since the only source to be found is in a letter penned by a secretary in English in 1949. In the comments underneath my September 2013 blog I refer to a text by Baha’u’llah that refers to punishments related to adultery and you made a comment there yourself lower down. So I assume you either forgot, ignored, or didn’t care that what the secretary wrote is not backed up by Bahai Scripture.
However Baha’u’llah did write “Be thou of the people of hell-fire, but be not a hypocrite.” (Cited in a compilation on Trustworthiness. Also in Compilation of compilations, Volume 2, page 337) which brings me to my next point.
The Bahai Teachings are: equality for all, justice for all, the principle of the independent investigation of truth and so on. See my blog which lists the major Bahai teachings. One of the Bahai Teachings is the distinction between social teachings which change over time, and Bahai teachings which do not change. I would agree with you that many Bahais currently think that a same-sex marriage between two Bahais is not possible and this social teaching is reinforced by the current policy of the Universal House of Justice which has the authority to make such policy. However what Bahais think or do is not the same as what is a Bahai Teaching. Only Baha’u’llah, Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi can state what is a Bahai Teaching. No one else can add in new teachings.
Finally, do you really think it is a Bahai Teaching that masturbation is a bad thing? You do not state this clearly in your comments, so that is why I am asking. If you wish to follow what is written in letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi personally as if these words have the same authority as Bahai Scripture, all good, but on my blog, I will not allow any more of your comments if you continue to confuse the distinctions between what is a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi and what is a Bahai Teaching.
I end with a quotation from the Universal House of Justice in relation to the book Lights of Guidance and note their emphasis on thinking for oneself and applying the Bahai Teachings as principles rather than taking the hellfire and damnation approach.
“The Universal House of Justice does not feel that the time has come for it to provide detailed legislation on subjects such as abortion, homosexuality and other moral issues. The principles pertaining to these issues are available in the book “Lights of Guidance” and elsewhere. In studying these principles, it should be noted that in most areas of human behaviour there are acts which are clearly contrary to the law of God and others which are clearly approved or permissible; between these there is often a grey area where it is not immediately apparent what should be done. It has been a human tendency to wish to eliminate these grey areas so that every aspect of life is clearly prescribed. A result of this tendency has been the tremendous accretion of interpretation and subsidiary legislation which has smothered the spirit of certain of the older religions. In the Bahá’í Faith moderation, which is so strongly upheld by Bahá’u’lláh, is applied here also. Provision is made for supplementary legislation by the Universal House of Justice — legislation which it can itself abrogate and amend as conditions change. There is also a clear pattern already established in the Sacred Scriptures, in the interpretations made by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi, and in the decisions so far made by the Universal House of Justice, whereby an area of the application of the laws is intentionally left to the conscience of each individual believer.
This is the age in which mankind must attain maturity, and one aspect of this is the assumption by individuals of the responsibility for deciding, with the assistance of consultation, their own course of action in areas which are left open by the law of God.
It should also be noted that it is neither possible nor desirable for the Universal House of Justice to set forth a set of rules covering every situation. Rather is it the task of the individual believer to determine, according to his own prayerful understanding of the Writings, precisely what his course of conduct should be in relation to situations which he encounters in his daily life. If he is to fulfil his true mission in life as a follower of the Blessed Perfection, he will pattern his life according to the Teachings. The believer cannot attain this objective merely by living according to a set of rigid regulations. When his life is oriented towards service to Bahá’u’lláh, and when every conscious act is performed within this frame of reference, he will not fail to achieve the true purpose of his life.”
The Universal House of Justice, 1988 June 2005, `Detailed Legislation on Moral Issues´
Just a Bahai Blog 
Thanks Sonia. I found this so helpful!!!. You are doing an amazing job x
Thanks P I didn’t realise that this link
http://www.bahai.com/Bahaullah/introduction.htm was the source for you writing: “Shoghi Effendi said the Bab, Baha’u’llah and ‘Abdu’l Baha are the Central Figures.”
The text on the website about this reads:
“The Bahá’í Faith revolves around three central Figures, the first of whom was a youth, a native of Shíráz, named Mírzá ‘Alí Muhammad, known as the Báb (Gate), who…”
and the source listed below this is:
Selections quoted in Remembrance of God: A Selection of Bahá’í Prayers and Holy Writings (India: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1990)
Initially I did not notice the title at the very top “Introduction by Shoghi Effendi” and now I went to check this because what is put on a website doesn’t automatically make it a source as far as I am concerned.
I found two versions of the text, one with the sentence mentioning the central figures and one without this phrase which are both attributed to Shoghi Effendi. The one that includes the phrase is a 1947 statement prepared by Shoghi Effendi for the UN special committee on Palestine.
The text on this page doesn’t say that these three are central figures but that “The Bahai Faith revolves around three central figures.” The meaning here is less black and white than how you have stated this, and is it clear that the context is of history.
The context for my statement above “Only Baha’u’llah, Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi can state what is a Bahai Teaching.” is for Bahai teachings or doctrine where you can’t leave out Shoghi Effendi. It is true that The Bab’s Teachings are part of Bahai Teachings but I chose not to refer to the Bab because Baha’u’llah abrogated some of the Bab’s laws and this too complicated for an opening sentence. The text in my blog “link to what is Bahai Scripture” links to this text:
Baha’is consider all verified writings authored by The Bab (1819-1850), Baha’u’llah (1817-1892) and ‘Abdu’l-Baha (1844-1921) and anything penned by Shoghi Effendi (1897-1957) himself where he made clear he was writing in his role as authoritative interpreter, as having the authority of scripture.
I know I am sounding picky here but for me this is the ‘slippery slope’ where text could end up being treated as if it is teaching there are 3 prophets. In this context Shoghi Effendi is referring to the Bahai faith historically revolving around three central figures, not that the Bahai Faith has three central figures (not including Shoghi Effendi) who define the Bahai Teachings. I also think Shoghi Effendi would always be very clear about the distinctions in station between Baha’u’llah and Abdul-Baha and himself.
H, you wrote: “I never understood why the letter about this distinction was itself “on behalf” of the Guardian.”
I agree, things would be much clearer or easier if Shoghi Effendi had penned something along these lines himself. I have looked long and hard and found nothing except in letters written on his behalf. So I have come to the conclusion that Shoghi Effendi probably decided that all matters of a lesser status be handled by the secretaries including questions about just what the status of these letters are. I think that the silence shows how unimportant in relation to the Bahai teachings, Shoghi Effendi considered these letters to be (the lesser status). I state this because I think Shoghi Effendi was deliberate about his actions.
It seems to me that you have selected parts of the Guardian’s comments which suit your argument and ignored others that do not.
First, the Guardian states and obvious point: “although the material is good, he feels that the complete lack of quotation marks is very misleading. His own words, the words of his various secretaries, even the Words of Bahá’u’lláh Himself, are all lumped together as one text.” When quoting from sources one cannot lump together different writers without using appropriate quotation marks to identify the different sources.
Second, he does state another obvious point:”their words are in no sense the same as his, their style certainly not the same, and their authority less, for they use their own terms and not his exact words in conveying his messages.” Clearly, the writing style (his was inimitable) and exact words of the secretaries will be different from the Guardian’s and their authority less.
Third, however you use these comments to ignore the validity of all letters written on the Guardian’s behalf. This cannot be the case as he clearly states that despite his caveats, these letters by his secretaries “convey his thoughts and instructions and these messages are authoritative.” Note: they convey “his thoughts and instructions” and are “authoritative.” You have completely ignored this in your analysis of the status of the letters. Authoritative means 1. having or proceeding from authority, official; 2. clearly accurate or knowledgeable. – all of which is consistent with the Guardian’s assertion that the letters “convey his thoughts and instructions.”
You further buttress your argument you affirm that what the secretaries wrote have to be buttressed by Bahai scripture. This ignores the whole purpose of Abdu’l-Baha’s appointment of a Guardian which was to interpret Bahai scripture and guard the Faith from schism. This is known as the Lesser Covenant.
Your argument is further undermined by the fact that the House of Justice has quoted from letters written on behalf of the Guardian in numerous communications which is quite understandable in view of the aforementioned points. Indeed, it has access to letters from secretaries to which the Guardian added postscripts in his own handwriting. So it seems to me that in discarding these letters entirely your argument is not as rigorous from an analytical perspective as it could have been. We cannot simply ignore letters which the Guardian himself deemed authoritative and which he clearly stated conveyed his thoughts and instructions and which are quoted by the House in its communications with the Bahai world.
Roland, this is my blog and it is important to me that Bahais do not knowingly mis -attribute anything penned by a secretary writing on behalf of Shoghi Effendi. So this is your first warning. In any future comment on my blog, please make this distinction clear and do not refer to these letters as if they were written by the Guardian.
I do not discard these letters, i attempt to treat them as I think Shoghi Effendi intended as having a lesser status than anything he wrote himself and it seems to me that these letters were intended for the addressee.
You wrote: “We cannot simply ignore letters which the Guardian himself deemed authoritative” – Authorative for which purpose? For a particular time and place? I wouldn’t know but all I know is that it is picking and choosing to treat a few letters (in most discussions with Bahais such as yourself it tends to boil down to the 5 which damn homosexuality) as if they have the same authority as anything penned by Shoghi Effendi while treating letters on other topics as if this is advice, or of a lower status or as advice for the addressee. I would say IF these letters are intended to have the authority of scripture then Shoghi Effendi would have made this clear. I have only been able to find 3 letters which refer to the status of these letters in some manner and all 3 stress that these letters should be treated differently (a lower authority or as advice for the addressee). One letter states that Shoghi Effendi read each letter, but reading does not equal authorship.
How are these letters treated? There are thousands of these letters. I only keep hearing of the 5 that damn homosexuality in some manner but the one that tells us that Bahais must not use any form of birth control is clearly ignored.
Would Shoghi Effendi leave it up to secretaries to pen what would be then used as authorative for the whole Bahai community? To be used on par with scripture?
The UHJ has the authority to make policy in any manner it chooses to, and to refer to any text it chooses to, but the UHJ cannot tell the Bahais how to interpret Bahai Scripture. So if you wish to make any argument about what is Bahai Teaching in terms of this being part of Scripture, please use this. Letters on behalf of Shoghi Effendi do not become part of Bahai Scripture because the UHJ might refer to these in its policy.
Justabahai, I am not sure why you felt the need to warn me and to become so upset. Nowhere in my post do I “refer to these letters as if they were written by the Guardian.” Could you provide me with a quote from what I have written to substantiate your claim?
You referenced what is clearly a very important statement by the Guardian which we should be able to discuss objectively with mutual respect. In regard to this statement you stressed the section which stated: ”their words are in no sense the same as his, their style certainly not the same, and their authority less, for they use their own terms and not his exact words in conveying his messages.” At no point did I disagree with this or imply that the letters had the same status as what the Guardian wrote. On the contrary, I wrote: “Clearly, the writing style (his was inimitable) and exact words of the secretaries will be different from the Guardian’s and their authority less.”
All I did do was to focus on what seemed to be an equally important dimension of his statement which was that despite the aforementioned caveats which you focus on the Guardian nonetheless stated that the letters were “authoritative” and “conveyed his thoughts and instructions”. That seems to me to be the reason the House uses some of them in its elucidations and other communications. You ask for what purpose were they authoritative. I suggest that you refer this to the House of Justice.
It seems that it was my focus on these words which is what upset you. However, we cannot quote one section of sentences from a paragraph and attach great importance to it as criteria for discussion and ignore another section and dismiss its importance re any relevance to another set of criteria.
Further, I wasn’t thinking about homosexuality as there are thousands of letters written by the Guardian’s secretaries on a vast number of topics. For example, in many of these letters the Guardian interprets the meaning of many passages in the scriptures and others including the Bible. I was focusing solely on the doctrinal implications of your claim – which are far reaching for many topics other than homosexuality – since it would be too simplistic in my view to dismiss them all as having no validity at all when the Guardian himself states they are “authoritative.” He was extremely careful in his choice of words as you well know.
After noting your response, I did a quick search in Google and found the following within 10 seconds: http://bahai-library.com/uhj_letters_behalf_guardian
Please note the reference to “authoritative” and to this statement: In a postscript appended to a letter dated 7 December 1930, written on his behalf to an individual believer, Shoghi Effendi described the normal procedure he followed in dealing with correspondence written on his behalf:
“I wish to add and say that whatever letters are sent in my behalf from Haifa are all read and approved by me before mailing. There is no exception whatever to this rule.”
Now clearly there are some letters which he did not approve or review such as was the case with the specific letters by Mr Ioas but if we are to examine such issues with analytical rigor it does not seem to me be the most prudent course of action to simply dismiss all letters by the Guardian’s secretaries on his behalf. This would be too dogmatic and risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If you disagree that is fine by me as I prefer to refer such issues to the House for clarification such as was done by the person who submitted the matter to the House thereby eliciting its 2006 response.
Roland, the reason I made my comment: “Roland, this is my blog and it is important to me that Bahais do not knowingly mis -attribute anything penned by a secretary writing on behalf of Shoghi Effendi. So this is your first warning. In any future comment on my blog, please make this distinction clear and do not refer to these letters as if they were written by the Guardian.”
was because you wrote “First, the Guardian states an(d) obvious point:” and then “Second, he does state another obvious point:” and both times you are referring to a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi. This is why I made my comment. I will respond to other points you raise, later on.
Thanks for that clarification. I should have been more precise as I note on reading the passage you quoted again that it is indeed a letter written on the Guardian’s behalf and not by him personally.
I am confused now though re your position. On the one hand, you assert that letters written on behalf of the Guardian are not authoritative and you strongly object to people quoting from letters written on his behalf, as if it was written by him, to support their points. This is why you warned me and objected to my incorrect reference to the letter as something he himself stated. But on the other hand, you quoted from this letter written on his behalf to justify and support your own point re such letters having lesser authority. This seems to me to be inherently contradictory.
One would assume that, for the sake of consistency, if you are stipulating that letters written on his behalf cannot be used as a basis for supporting points, then the logical assumption would be that you could only have quoted from text written by the Guardian himself. However, what you have quoted is a letter on his behalf so, ipso facto, according to your own criteria and position, it cannot support your point anymore than quoting from letters written on his behalf would support other points written about any other topic.
i suggest that you read my blog Roland https://justabahai.wordpress.com/2015/07/18/does-a-letter-create-a-bahai-teaching/#comment-3261
hopefully then it will be clearer. I do not state that these letters have no authority, so please stop writing “On the one hand, you assert that letters written on behalf of the Guardian are not authoritative” – I do not. I think they have a lesser authority because this is what is stated in a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi.
If Shoghi Effendi had penned anything in his own hand on the status of these letter, for sure, I would be quoting this. As far as I know he didn’t. So all I can do is refer to the three letters which discuss the status of these letters. Clearly they must not be that important in terms of status or authority or in relation to the teachings or else Shoghi Effendi would have made time to write something in his own hand. He didn’t. He left this up to the secretaries.
That is not being inconsistent. But I am clear that I am quoting letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi which do have a lowerer authority or status, when I do this. The problem is that you were claiming this was written by Shoghi Effendi and to quote you, yes I do “strongly object to people quoting from letters written on his behalf, as if it was written by him, to support their points.” Wouldn’t anyone object if someone mis-attributes a quotation?
“Does a letter from a secretary create a Bahaí teaching?” You are not on slippery slope here as you have already fallen down the slope.
You write an entire article to prove that a letter from a secretary on behalf of the Guardian does not create a Bahai teaching. You then reference a letter from a secretary on behalf of the Guardian in The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha’i Community to create your own Bahai teaching that this is so!
This makes no sense whatsoever.
Homa, in that let’s just call it a mystery for you. At least the person labelled H in the comments above understood my blog.
Sonja, I hope you this will give you some clarity: http://bahai-library.com/uhj_letters_behalf_guardian
Three Excerpts: 1. With regard to your questions about the authority of letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, particularly those sent from the Holy Land during the latter part of his ministry, there is no justification for summarily dismissing the authoritative guidance contained in this body of correspondence. If concerns arise in relation to specific messages or topics addressed, clarification can be sought from the Universal House of Justice.
2. In a postscript appended to a letter dated 7 December 1930, written on his behalf to an individual believer, Shoghi Effendi described the normal procedure he followed in dealing with correspondence written on his behalf:
I wish to add and say that whatever letters are sent in my behalf from Haifa are all read and approved by me before mailing. There is no exception whatever to this rule.
Given the Guardian’s categorical assertion, it follows that any “exception” to “this rule” would require his explicit permission. For example, in the latter years of his ministry, Shoghi Effendi assigned to the Hand of the Cause Leroy Ioas the special responsibility for monitoring the progress of the goals of the Ten Year Crusade. In implementing this specific function, Mr. Ioas worked under the close supervision of the Guardian; however, not all of his letters–for example, those simply requesting information about the goals–were viewed by Shoghi Effendi before being transmitted.
3. Note that the letters written on behalf of the Guardian are also described as being “authoritative”. No additional information has, to date, come to light on this subject.
Roland you quoted “I wish to add and say that whatever letters are sent in my behalf from Haifa are all read and approved by me before mailing.” (letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, 7 December 1930)
There is a difference between reading and approving letters, of a lower status, and authoring.
You seem to be assuming that because Shoghi Effendi, as stated in a letter written on his behalf, “read and approved” all these letters than then their status has a higher authority than stated in the following letters.
“The exact status which Shoghi Effendi has intended the friends to give to those communications he sends to individual believers is explained in the following statement… He has also said that whenever he has something of importance to say, he invariably communicates it to the National Spiritual Assembly or in his general letters. His personal letters to individual friends are only for their personal benefit and even though he does not want to forbid their publication …” (1932)
“I wish to call your attention to certain things in “Principles of Bahá’í Administration” which has just reached the Guardian; although the material is good, he feels that the complete lack of quotation marks is very misleading. His own words, the words of his various secretaries, even the Words of Bahá’u’lláh Himself, are all lumped together as one text. This is not only not reverent in the case of Bahá’u’lláh’s Words, but misleading. Although the secretaries of the Guardian convey his thoughts and instructions and these messages are authoritative, their words are in no sense the same as his, their style certainly not the same, and their authority less, for they use their own terms and not his exact words in conveying his messages. He feels that in any future edition this fault should be remedied, any quotations from Bahá’u’lláh or the Master plainly attributed to them, and the words of the Guardian clearly differentiated from those of his secretaries.”
Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, 25 February 1951 in The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha’i Community, p. 260)
I do not have time to untangle which of the above are your own views and which are quotations from letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi. If you comment again, please do as I do, put quotation marks around what is a quotation and add the source underneath.
I repeat: reading a letter is not the same as giving it Scriptural authority.
“Whatever letters are sent in my behalf from Haifa are all read and approved by me before mailing. There is no exception whatever to this rule.”
This was a Letter sent to an individual on 7 Dec 1930, cited in a letter from the UHJ 22 oct, 1996.
This letter was a response to this:
“Can you make a statement which would establish the authenticity of your letters written by Ruhi or Soheil with your P.C. [sic] attached. There are still some people who continue to feel that these letters are not authorized by you and only express the personal opinions of the above writers.”
(The Universal House of Justice, 1996 Oct 22, Authentication and Authority)
Knowing what the letter was responding to means that it is clear that the purpose of the response was to assert some general level of authority to the letters.
The point here is to assure the addressee that there is some authority so Shoghi Effendi didn’t need to write such letters himself but I would never assume this to mean it is authoritative interpretation on par with Shoghi Effendi’s station as the Guardian. If you might think there is a conflict of meaning with the 1930 letter and the ones written in 1932 and 1951, then I would say, give the latter letters priority as conditions must have changed.
Appealing to “H” having “understood ” your blog does not make it correct as this is simple logic which H may not be capable of understanding.
If you argue consistently in your various blogs that Pilgrim’s Notes, for example, cannot be used to justify a viewpoint re homosexuality as those posting would be equating Pilgrim’s Notes with scripture, and you vehemently condemn those who do it, you cannot then reference a Pilgrim Note to support your own argument. You have taken a very strong and consistent position against the use of letters on behalf of the Guardian so you cannot then use such a letter to support your viewpoint.
This lapse in logical consistency would be obvious to most casual readers without my even having to point out that it makes no sense. In any case, it is clear that such letters are authoritative and read and approved by the Guardian with only a few exceptions which is clearly why the House has used them in its elucidations of homosexuality and other topics.
Homa you are incorrect. I have not ” have taken a very strong and consistent position against the use of letters on behalf of the Guardian ” – What my position is, is that if any Bahai wants to treat these letters as anything more than being intended as advice for the addressee, then that Bahai should not pick and choose. That Bahai should not select just those 5 letters that mention homosexuality and elevate these letter to a higher authority or status while ignoring the advice in the thousands of other letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi.
Your words “In any case, it is clear that such letters are authoritative” with nothing to back this up is not an argument. If you or even many Bahais or even the UHJ refer to these letters as if they are authorative in the sense of being like laws for Bahais today to follow, then this usage doesn’t change the status that Shoghi Effendi intended for these letters. I am not claiming to know what Shoghi Effendi’s intentions were. All I am doing is looking at what was and was not penned by Shoghi Effendi.
I repeat, IF Shoghi Effendi had mentioned one word about the status of these letters in his own hand, you can be assured that I would be quoting this. There is not anything so it is a case of doing second best, see if any of these letters say anything about who they are intended for or how they are to be used while making it absolutely clear that I am only referring to a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi while making this argument.
There is a difference between using a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi as historical evidence and using it as doctrine. So back to my blog above, a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi cannot create new doctrine. And I have not done this in referring to those three letters that refer to these letters having a lesser status or authority.
Justabahai, I have to agree that using a letter on behalf of Shoghi Effendi as the basis for your argument is a double standard when you are telling others not to do it.
If I had a science blog and told (and warned!) people posting not to use articles that were not peer reviewed how could I then justify using a non peer reviewed article myself as the basis for my blog? That would be a clear double standard. Shouldn’t I use only peer reviewed articles to support my arguments?
I don’t care what H says. You cannot call it a “mystery” for Homa as it is very obvious what you have done and not at all a “mystery” for her or anyone who has read your reference to the Letter on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha’i Community, p. 260.
I repeat, IF Shoghi Effendi had mentioned one word about the status of these letters in his own hand, you can be assured that I would be quoting this. So far as I know there is nothing so it is a case of doing second best, see if any of these letters say anything about who they are intended for or how they are to be used while making it absolutely clear that I am only referring to a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi while making this argument.
There is a difference between using a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi as historical evidence and using it as doctrine. So back to my blog above, a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi cannot create new doctrine. And I have not done this in referring to those two letters that refer to these letters having a lesser status or authority. Of course one could run around in circles and say, well a letter on behalf of Shoghi Effendi cannot create the doctrine of its own status. I wouldn’t disagree here if we are talking about Bahai Scripture but we are talking about letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, thousands of them, penned by secretaries which have a lower status than anything Shoghi Effendi penned himself. I do think it was a stroke of genius that Shoghi Effendi decided to have others pen responses so it would be very clear that this was not part of his own authority as official interpreter of Bahai Scripture.
The reply to a request for guidance on this matter definitively refuting the above received on
September 11, 2019:
The Universal House of Justice has received your email letter of 2 March 2018, seeking clarification concerning the authority of a number of letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi related to the Bahá’í teachings on homosexuality. It is understood that you have encountered Internet postings and articles asserting that such letters are not authoritative, that there are no Sacred Writings in the Bahá’í Faith about homosexuality, and that the House of Justice may, therefore, permit Bahá’ís to enter into same-sex marriage in the future. We have been asked to convey the following and regret the delay in our response, due to the pressure of work at the Bahá’í World Centre.
During his ministry, Shoghi Effendi communicated with individual believers, Bahá’í institutions, and others through cables and letters he penned himself as well as through letters written on his behalf and at his instruction. Through both types of communications, he shared his guidance and, at times, his interpretations of the Sacred Writings. Both constitute authoritative Bahá’í writings. In fact, the overwhelming majority of Shoghi Effendi’s communications were letters written on his behalf. The suggestion that this instrument for conveying guidance was not intended by him to be authoritative is baseless. Indeed, Shoghi Effendi himself addressed this
very question in his lifetime.
In late 1930, the Guardian received a request to issue a statement about letters written by his secretaries and that contained his postscript, given that some felt these letters were not authorized by the Guardian and only expressed the personal opinions of the secretaries. In his response, contained in his handwritten and signed postscript to a letter dated 7 December 1930, Shoghi Effendi stated:
“I wish to add and say that whatever letters are sent in my behalf from Haifa are all read and approved by me before mailing.” Letters written on Shoghi Effendi’s behalf often include postscripts in his own handwriting. Every letter found to date that contains guidance on the subject of homosexuality includes a signed postscript by Shoghi Effendi himself.
In addition to the letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, there exist other authoritative Bahá’í writings prohibiting believers from engaging in homosexual practice. In paragraph 107 of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Bahá’u’lláh prohibited homosexual relations, as Shoghi Effendi’s authoritative interpretation shows. The Research Department at the Bahá’í World Centre has confirmed that the Guardian’s manuscript notes for the codification of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, which includes in the list of prohibitions the word “homosexuality”, are in his own handwriting and clearly cross-reference this entry to the specific term in paragraph 107 of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas.
It is evident, therefore, that the prohibition against Bahá’ís’ engaging in homosexual behavior is an explicit teaching of the Cause. The House of Justice is authorized to change or repeal its own legislation as conditions change, thus providing Bahá’í law with an essential
element of flexibility, but it cannot abrogate or change any of the laws that are explicitly laid down in the Sacred Texts. It follows, then, that the House of Justice has no authority to change this clear teaching on homosexual practice.
As you have observed, the resolution of differences of opinion on fundamental questions is to be found not by continued argumentation on the Internet but in referring to the House of Justice itself, as you have done. Prolonged, unresolved, public discussion of such issues can do nothing but breed confusion and dissension.
[ inserted by justabahai — > With loving Bahá’í greetings, Department of the Secretariat ]
Link to the original PDF from the Universal House of Justice :
https://drive.google.com/open?id=17URsSuPi1yWC6Otj7e6PcxuREfRdO8L0
Because some concern was expressed at the time the letter of inquiry was sent about whether its contents and tone would be acceptable, the text of the inquiry as sent is pasted below :
Dearest Gentlemen of the Universal House of Justice,
I am writing with questions about the memorandum from the Universal House of Justice of January 12th 2006, where one finds this statement:
“With regard to your questions about the authority of letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, particularly those sent from the Holy Land during the latter part of his ministry, there is no justification for summarily dismissing the authoritative guidance contained in this body of correspondence. If concerns arise in relation to specific messages or topics addressed, clarification can be sought from the Universal House of Justice.”
A most unpleasant quarrel erupted recently in a Facebook group called “Baha’i Studies” about the status of five of these letters. Below, I include a link to the post and comments for complete information, but suffice it to say here that the tone of some participants towards each other will not bring happiness to your hearts.
One believer asserted that others have been undermining the Covenant with statements about the letters regarding homosexuality and the Baha’i Faith.
This same fiery debate takes place on a regular basis on this page and others, although this one was especially bad and protracted. Unfortunately, the same page, which already has nearly 6500 members, seems to have begun to attract more unsophisticated visitors of late, some new Baha’is or seekers who come to learn about the Faith, so the ongoing spectacle is especially regrettable.
It became evident that the crux of the matter is five letters written by secretaries of the Guardian on his behalf and some articles that have been written which hold that these letters do not have enough authority to be sure that an actively, openly homosexual lifestyle is incompatible with membership in the Baha’i Community.
Although links to the articles can be found in comments on the post, for convenience, I also include links to the three articles below so that you may become informed without allowing any ideas of mine to creep into explanations on the matter.
Finally, I pointed out that the disputes need to stop, that instructions from you already anticipated the need for further clarification about some of the letters on behalf of the Guardian, and I tried to get any of those who quarrelled to write to you. None stepped forward as you can see in the posted comments. So, I am doing it. As this is an international page, no National Spiritual Assembly was consulted first.
The main question is whether the five letters on homosexuality, all written by secretaries of the Guardian, are entirely authoritative or not? If they are not, is this author correct to suggest that over time, things may well change to accommodate active, open homosexuality, and according to some others, perhaps Baha’i Marriage so that openly homosexual couples could be part of our communities? If they are entirely authoritative, and if refuting these ideas is advisable at all, what may the Friends say when this comes up?
I am well aware of what has already been written on the subject, but the author of the articles and those who agree assert quite firmly that these five letters represent hope for their future from their point of view.
I’ll leave it to you to evaluate for yourselves whether, apart from the questions posed, the disunity on display in the comments requires guidance or intervention from you, perhaps as a separate matter, so that the questions themselves can be addressed first.
With Sincerest Gratitude,
Link 1 to the post on the Baha’i Studies page.
https://m.facebook.com/groups/5868171151?view=permalink&id=10154990839831152
Link 2 Article Does a letter from a secretary create a Bahai Teaching?
Link 3 Article Baha’i Scripture on Homosexuality
Link 4 Article Authority of the Baha’i Administration.
:
Ma KaiTe,
Are you then the Ms. K W M the pdf is addressed to and is what you have pasted below your own letter?
And the links to my blog here, were these put on that facebook group or just sent in your letter addressed to the Universal House of Justice?
You assert quite a few things about what you say I write on my blog but you are not the first Bahai to misinterpret or perhaps misunderstand what I write and so this is why I started this blog and why this blog is public so anyone can read for themselves what I actually write. I will deal with your mis-information point by point once it is clear to me that the “I” in your comments above is yourself. Thanks for sharing your letter as I think it is always better to engage with the person you disagree with.
Hi Sonya. I provided a copy of the letter with questions to the Universal House of Justice because you requested me to do so back March of 2018. You expressed concern that the tone of the letter would not be acceptable from your point of view at the time. Have a nice day.
Kate
[surname and phone number removed by justabahai. Kate this is a public space, this is why I removed this]
Thanks for confirming that the “I” is yourself, Kate.
You wrote: “… you requested me to do so back March of 2018. You expressed concern that the tone of the letter would not be acceptable from your point of view at the time.”
I appreciate that memory is always tricky and this was over a year ago. Below are the comments I wrote in that private Bahai run group called Bahai Studies, on Facebook I was just a member of as you were, of which I was one of more than 10 who commented from a range of perspectives on the topic, in response to your announcement that you were going to write a letter to the UHJ to complain about the discussion on the topic of homosexuality. I keep copies of everything I write (including comments by others so the context is clear) but here are only my own comments because I have not asked permission of the others who commented:
26 Feb 2018: Kathryn Manifacier you do not have permission to quote anything I write without me having the opportunity to approve how you cut and paste my own words and see the new context you place these in first. However feel free to quote from my blog because that is public and there anyone can see for themselves if the context of what I write has been changed.
Make sure you add in the url so the U.H.J. can see that too.
Also I do not understand why you are wanting to write to the U.H.J. It seems that you think writing a letter to them will mean that you think this is a way to stop anyone commenting here on the topic of homosexuality? It would be useful to hear what the purpose of your letter would be.
and later 26 Feb 2018:
Who are you defining as a wrangler Kathryn Manifacier? anyone who disagrees with you? Why not at least just say those with a differing interpretation of authority of these letters to how you, Kathryn, are treating them. Saying “what the wranglers write” is biased.
and later again, 26 Feb 2018
Kathryn Manifacier you need to consult the moderators of this group or all the authors. This is a closed group. I would consider it unethical to copy comments and name individuals without their permission. It is unethical. See XXX’s witty comment on this.
[ In March you were telling everyone in that group that they were not allowed to comment on the topic of homosexuality and you expressed strong words about being ignored and you criticized the moderators for not to stopping the conversation. I am happy to quote your words here if you give me permission to do so. Don’t worry I will quote your comments in full so the context is clear. ]
2 Mar 2018:
Kathryn Manifacier do share the exact letter you sent them. You said you would. What you have written is a misrepresentation of the discussion here but I assume what is above is a snipbit. I for one am not “summarily dismissing the authoritative guidance contained” in letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi but I also do not give them more status or authority than Shoghi Effendi appears to have intended them to be used. I also do not tell others how much authority they must give these letters either.
11 Mar 2018::
Kathryn Manifacier there is no rule that states that you do not own this letter you wrote yourself.
Somewhere on this thread or somewhere else, you asked people to send you a PM – which I didn’t see – and now you are using this as argument now not to share the contents whereas before you said you would. I can only assume then that you are now too embarrassed about what you have sent to them. A letter written about a closed group without the permission of the moderators. About people’s comments here, I assume, who do not have the opportunity to see what you wrote.
You wrote: “Someone is finally asking the House about those specific letters which is the whole basis for Sonja’s argument. They will answer and the basis for the claims will either be refuted, or upheld. People do what they want, for good or evil, nothing changes that, but we can make the facts clear to onlookers and ourselves.”
I agree with making facts clear – absolutely, but not with words written by yourself that claim to be my argument – i don’t even know what you are claiming here. I view the letters having a lesser authority than anything penned by Shoghi Effendi. Anything else is speculation but Bahais can attempt to see what that letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi might or could mean by ‘lesser authority.’
I am sure that if you have claimed that letters on behalf are being dismissed (which they are not) that they will point out their in their memorandum of 12 January 2006. So then I would wonder why you wasted their time with a letter. Anyway FXX is likely to be correct, why would they respond to Bahai’s bickering on a facebook group. But I wonder Kathryn what purpose you hope to serve in misrepresenting me to the UHJ. I assume you are doing this otherwise you wouldn’t be afraid to show the letter here.
Kathryn if you don’t like the way the moderators manage this group why don’t you start your own Bahai studies group or join MXX’s group – there where people such as myself would not be allowed to express their views.
11 Mar 2018:
a bit pointless when i have no idea what you wrote isn’t it Kathryn Manifacier – this is all so petty and small minded and no, i want no part of any of your scheming. I am certainly not going to waste the UHJ’s time with this. I have more respect for them than that. You clearly have misunderstood the 2006 memorandum t refers to Bahais not knowing an answer not to some Bahais, one Bahai in your case, attempting to shut down a conversation here on a facebook group. I consider that petitioning the UHJ to take a side. I do not understand why you want to close off any discussion of the authority of the letters written on behalf of the Shoghi Effendi.
Anyway if there is a response, most Bahais would then show the original letter so anyone can understand the context of the response. Perhaps then you will show this.
11 Mar 2018::
Kathryn Manifacier the whole letter (pasted below) – to me – makes it clear that if a Bahai is upset – and i guess you are – then yes you CAN write to them, but I am not upset. And even if I was – “instructed” is your own interpretation of their word “can.” So you certainly cannot say Bahais are instructed to write to them.
I am expressing my displeasure at your lack of respect for this space. You didn’t even consult the moderators, but took it upon yourself to go off and write a letter stating repeatedly in this group, now that you have sent this letter that everyone had to stop talking on this topic. It seems that you think that writing a letter to the UHJ is a way to stop others from talking. It seems clear to me that this is the purpose of your letter. I am certainly not going to lower myself to your tactics. I agree with FXXX the UHJ has far more important issues than to spend energy on something Bahais are discussing in a closed facebook group.
I would suggest that if you find the diverse views expressed here too much for you to go somewhere else where you can agree with what those other Bahais are saying. I am not a member of many Bahai run facebook groups so just pick one I am not in for your discussions.
“12 January 2006
Dear __
We have received an email letter of 23 July 2005 from Mr. __…[Personal information omitted]… It would be appreciated if you would convey the following information and the enclosed item to Mr. __…[Personal information omitted]… Enclosed you will find a memorandum prepared by the Research Department that should be of assistance to him in resolving his questions. In addition to this information, the Universal House of Justice has asked that we provide the following comments to be conveyed to him.
With regard to your questions about the authority of letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, particularly those sent from the Holy Land during the latter part of his ministry, there is no justification for summarily dismissing the authoritative guidance contained in this body of correspondence. If concerns arise in relation to specific messages or topics addressed, clarification can be sought from the Universal House of Justice.
As to your question concerning when a matter is referred to the Research Department, this is determined by the Universal House of Justice depending on the nature of the inquiry. For example, in reply to questions regarding interpretation of the Text or the findings of general scholarship, the Research Department would provide references from the authoritative texts and offer comments that assist inquirers to draw their own personal conclusions. Other questions that require a decision on a specific case, consideration of general policies, or elucidation of obscure matters would, after consultation by the House of Justice, be referred to the Department of the Secretariat for reply.
Finally, you ask whether Bahá’ís should accept all statements in the Writings as based in fact, unless there is an explicit reference to a particular statement being conditioned on other information. It should be clear from the examples provided in the memorandum of the Research Department that there are some cases where passages from the Writings affirm specific facts and other cases where passages conform to the beliefs of particular peoples. It is, therefore, necessary for the reader to determine the meaning of statements that are not explicit by applying sound hermeneutical principles found in the Teachings. While there is often room for a range of personal interpretation on such matters, and a degree of ambiguity will invariably exist in some cases, usually a common understanding is formed, which will change over time should additional evidence come to light. Differences of personal opinion about the meaning of the Text should not be allowed to create discord or wrangling among the friends.
With loving Bahá’í greetings,
Department of the Secretariat”
—-
Kate, I appreciate that you might find my pasting only my own comments addressed to you one sided and so if you give me permission I will then copy in your own comments.
Thanks Sonia. I too find this extremely helpful!!!. You are doing an amazing job.I am amazed at how hard people work to make sure the LGBTQ community can be shunned
Dear Sonia, I have been reading this thread on your blog and think it is very important. I’m not sure if the September 24 2019 comment was simply the end of this thread (on homosexuality etc), or if the discussion is somehow continuing elsewhere on your blog or not?
No James, the conversation stops here. Kate or Kathryn Manifacier never responded. I am happy that she shared her letter of complaint and I hope any reader would be able to glean from just my own comments, that the nature of the discussion in that closed Bahai Studies Facebook group was not the way she summarized it.
As I recall she was annoyed that people continued to debate the authority of the letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi and she wanted everyone to stop commenting because she said that she had written a letter to the UHJ.
She might have asked the moderators to close the discussion and was annoyed that they didn’t, but I have no idea as I was just one of 10 or so who were commenting on that topic.
I do write infrequently on this blog because I lead quite a busy life. You can use this page to find things of interest and do inform me if there’s something missing or you have a question or comment or if a link is wrong.
RE the 2006 the Department of the Secretariat (letter cited above, scroll to 12 January 2006): “Other questions that require a decision on a specific case, consideration of general policies, or elucidation of obscure matters would, after consultation by the House of Justice, be referred to the Department of the Secretariat for reply.”
I assume then unless a Department of the Secretariat letter makes it clear that their response is after or in response to consultation by the House of Justice it means that their letter is “in reply to questions regarding interpretation of the Text or the findings of general scholarship, the Research Department would provide references from the authoritative texts and offer comments that assist inquirers to draw their own personal conclusions.” (ibid)
For the 11 September 2019 letter above, I must assume this is the thinking of the UHJ because of the text I have made bold here:
“The Universal House of Justice has received your email letter of 2 March 2018, seeking clarification concerning the authority of a number of letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi related to the Bahá’í teachings on homosexuality. It is understood that you have encountered Internet postings and articles asserting that such letters are not authoritative, that there are no Sacred Writings in the Bahá’í Faith about homosexuality, and that the House of Justice may, therefore, permit Bahá’ís to enter into same-sex marriage in the future. We have been asked to convey the following” …
One thing I find confusing here is the phrase “authoritative Bahá’í writings,” because while the UHJ made elucidate and make policy without any restriction, the UHJ cannot change the authority of the Letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi into “authoritative Bahá’í writings” (11 Sept 2019), unless here the UHJ means some other meaning for the term “Bahai Writings” than how I understand this to mean as being confined to texts penned by The Bab, Baha’u’llah, Abdul-Baha and interpretations of these by Shoghi Effendi penned in his own hand where he made it clear that this was official interpretation.
Here is a Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi which makes clear that “authoritative” for letters on his behalf mean an “authority [that is] less.”
“Although the secretaries of the Guardian convey his thoughts and instructions and these messages are authoritative, their words are in no sense the same as his, their style certainly not the same, and their authority less, for they use their own terms and not his exact words in conveying his messages.” (Letter on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha’i Community, p. 260) See more context for this 1951 letter here.
For me it seems as if the UHJ here is adding Letters with an “authority [that is] less” (1951) into the category of “… authoritative Bahá’í writings.” (2019)
“During his ministry, Shoghi Effendi communicated with individual believers, Bahá’í institutions, and others through cables and letters he penned himself as well as through letters written on his behalf and at his instruction. Through both types of communications, he shared his guidance and, at times, his interpretations of the Sacred Writings. Both constitute authoritative Bahá’í writings.” (my emphasis, second paragraph of the 11 September 2019, depart of the Secretariat letter)
If anyone can find anything from Shoghi Effendi where he changes the authority of these letters to the status of Bahai Scripture or the Bahai Writings, please share the sources with me. Also if you find any definitions of authoritative Bahai Writings, that would help me too.
Please bear in mind the Shoghi Effendi’s handwritten and signed postscript to a letter dated 7 December 1930 which states:
“I wish to add and say that whatever letters are sent in my behalf from Haifa are all read and approved by me before mailing” does not change the “authority [is] less” of these letters. (More about the 1930 letter)
It seems that the authority of these letters is unclear in practice in the Bahai community, but I think it does not equal “authoritative Bahá’í writings.” (UHJ, 2019)
The reason I say that the authority of Letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi seems unclear is because the letter that strongly condemns the use of birth control (1935) is clearly ignored by the majority of Bahais and the UHJ is not instructing nor encouraging Bahais not to use a form of birth control. That letter is an example, to me, of the lesser authority of these letters to that of authoritative Bahá’í writings.
Here is that letter: “As to the problem of birth control, neither Bahá’u’lláh nor Abdu’l-Bahá has revealed anything direct or explicit regarding this question. But the Bahá’í Teachings, when carefully studied imply that such current conceptions like birth control, if not necessarily wrong and immoral in principle, have nevertheless to be discarded as constituting a real danger to the very foundations of our social life. For Bahá’u’lláh explicitly reveals in His Book of Laws that the very purpose of marriage is the procreation of children who, when grown up, will be able to know God and to recognize and observe His Commandments and Laws as revealed through His Messengers. Marriage is thus, according to the Bahá’í Teachings, primarily a social and moral act. It has a purpose which transcends the immediate personal needs and interests of the parties. Birth control, except in certain exceptional cases, is therefore not permissible.”
(my emphasis) Letter on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, 1935, bahai-library.com.
On behalf of Shoghi Effendi, letter dated 10/14/35 to individual believer
Also here: (scroll to page 42 of the pdf which is page 82 in the manuscript)
And some thoughts in relation to this letter on birth control and some examples of when policy is used to discriminate against homosexuals when in the same situation as heterosexuals: justabahai.wordpress.com/2010