I have been viewing this website bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/index.htm and specifically reading the section pertaining to fulfilled prophecies. This has raised some questions for me.
One particular question pertains to some prophecies of Joseph Smith which appear to have been fulfilled by Baha'u'llah.
My question is as (on this website anyway) Baha'u'llah is said to have fulfilled the prophecies of Joseph Smith, does the Baha'i faith consider him to be a prophet and if so is the religion of mormonism viewed as part of the progressive revelation?
Hi all, I have been viewing this website bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/index.htm and specifically reading the section pertaining to fulfilled prophecies. This has raised some questions for me. One particular question pertains to some prophecies of Joseph Smith which appear to have been fulfilled by Baha'u'llah.
My question is as (on this website anyway) Baha'u'llah is said to have fulfilled the prophecies of Joseph Smith, does the Baha'i faith consider him to be a prophet and if so is the religion of mormonism viewed as part of the progressive revelation?
Thanks, George.
From the Baha'i Writings:
As for the status of Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon Faith, he is not considered by Bahá'ís to be a prophet, minor or otherwise. But of course he was a religious teacher sensitive to the spiritual currents flowing in the early 19th century directly from the appearance of the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh and the Revelation of Their Messages of hope and Divine Guidance. In this respect you might find chapter ten in the late Hand of the Cause George Townshend's book, 'Christ and Bahá'u'lláh,' interesting." (Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 510)
As there is nothing specific about Joseph Smith in the teachings, the Guardian has no statement to make on his position or about the accuracy of any statement in the Book of Mormon regarding American history or its peoples. This is a matter for historians to pass upon. (Shoghi Effendi, High Endeavours - Messages to Alaska, p. 71)
As to the mormons themselves:
"The Mormons are a people with high principles and ideals, and the step spiritually into the Cause is not as difficult for them as for many others not possessing their faith and devotion. However, the very zeal with which they serve their own Faith makes it difficult for them to grasp the greater vision of our Holy Cause." (Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 511)
A personal opinion:
As to Smith's prophecies, as noted in the quote above he was a religious teacher and was sensitive to the times; as such he was like the TV revivalist/evangelist of today. He used the Bible to quote (in his own words) what he thought would be taking place with the return of Christ and being a charismatic personality convinced many of his understanding concerning such; thus a sect of Christianity was formed. So in a sense Baha'u'llah didn't fulfill Joseph Smith's prophecies but those of the Bible. As the quote indicates above it is up to historians to prove or disprove the book of mormon ...
The sciences of this world are droplets of reality; if then they lead not to reality, what fruit can come of illusion? By the one true God! If learning be not a means of access to Him, the Most Manifest, it is nothing but evident loss. (Baha'i Faith)
While the Book of Mormon is not inspired scripture, from a Baha'i standpoint, it's nice to connect to Mormons by reading their scripture. Besides, it's hard to deny that God has absolutely no role in a religion that has amassed a huge following. Not saying Mormonism is fully correct, but it does have quite a few virtues about it.
However men try to reach me, I return their love with my love; whatever path they may travel, it leads to me in the end - Bhagavad Gita 4:11
"Knowledge is a light which God casteth into the heart of whomsoever He willeth" - The Four Valleys; Hadith
A poster who goes by the name "aka_me" has, on multiple occasions, tried to use the argument that Mormonism was supposed to lead to Baha'i; most recently, he started it again a day or so back and derailed a thread to do so.
As someone who is LDS, I find that the arguments he presents are flawed at best, and as I noted in the discussion info.bahai.org actually contradicts at least one argument he's put forth (yes, I tried to locate an official Baha'i website in order to see what the official theology was).
So my question is - how common is this argument among those who are Baha'i, and for those who believe it to be so, what arguments do they use?
As can be seen from the discussion I've linked to, there is reason to believe that the LDS theology me keeps referencing refers to everything but the rise of the Baha'i faith owing to a variety of factors and that trying to have it be used as support is simply wrenching the verses. For example, one such passage that he cited has Joseph noting that Jesus will likely not return before 1890; me is trying to use this as "proof" in the sense that the 1890s was when Baha'i was introduced to the West, but even a surface reading renders the argument a technicality at best since the faith - according to the timelines he himself provided us - came about in the 1840s.
Making matters worse is that me simultaneously claims to be both "Baha'i" and "Christian," something that is causing problems for just about everyone who reads his posts as his arguments in favor of the Baha'i faith sometimes contradict what mainstream Christians teach; it's hard to follow his arguments when he makes such statements, let alone pull out the logic. Is trying to classify oneself as both religions common within the Baha'i faith?
(yes, I tried to locate an official Baha'i website in order to see what the official theology was).
That's always a good idea.
So my question is - how common is this argument among those who are Baha'i, and for those who believe it to be so, what arguments do they use?
Have not seen it before. It's probably just an individual opinion or understanding.
Making matters worse is that me simultaneously claims to be both "Baha'i" and "Christian," something that is causing problems for just about everyone who reads his posts as his arguments in favor of the Baha'i faith sometimes contradict what mainstream Christians teach; it's hard to follow his arguments when he makes such statements, let alone pull out the logic. Is trying to classify oneself as both religions common within the Baha'i faith?
Well, in the sense that we consider Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam all to be from God:
"This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future." (Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 136)
This is the same sense by which one might say that a Christian is also a Jew or that a Muslim is a Jew and a Christian, too. But you can see that they are all distinguished also by an understanding that there is a New Testament that makes those who additionally believe in it, a new people with interpretations of previous Revealed Words that may not have been what was accepted doctrine before.
An example is the Lord's explanation that the sabbath was made for man, and not the reverse. From a Christian's view it is clear and simple but a Jew might say that it is not the way he would see it. That soul could be seeing it as piety to endure the rigors of obedience to what he sees as Law.
So is a "mainstream" thought sufficient say? Latter Day Saints hold many beliefs that contradict what "mainstream'' Christians believe. Nontheless, this one personally believes that they are Christians. Christianity has thousands of denominations. Which one of them can we cast out of it?
Bahá'ís believe in Buddhism as sent by God yet mainstream Buddhists teach a different understanding of Diety if it is accepted at all!
Bahá'ís believe in Hinduism as Divinely ordained yet we consider their mainsteam concept of reincarnation false.
The list can go on and every one of these Revelations that we honor, as created and given to humanity by God, has many denominations with contradictory doctrines defining each of them from others.
We can lump them all together but then logically, inevitably and eventually; we might have to say they are all one common Faith.
"This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future." (Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 136)
The person I'm dealing with has shown to possess a somewhat shaky grasp of history and any theology that isn't his own, and so whenever he says something it's easiest to just go look it up and point out who says what.
In this case, what he was arguing sounded rather far removed from what I'd heard of the faith (I took a comparitive religions class a few years back) and so I decided to track down what could be construed as an officially-sanctioned Baha'I site in order to see what the theology offically stated.
Have not seen it before. It's probably just an individual opinion or understanding.
The person I'm dealing with carries on in such a fashion that one might think it to be official teaching.
Hence why I'm asking, so as to determine if it is official teaching or a person confusing opinion for fact.
How would you have it then, dear friend?
The person in question switches back and forth depending upon what's most convenient for them during the course of an argument. Because of this tendency, I have come to doubt his sincerity in regards to being either; rather, he seems to be more an opportunist than anything else.
For example, he's a Baha'I when the topic turns to discussing the persecution of those who are LDS (hundreds of Mormons died in the 1800s due to mob violence and government [in]action, and even today violence still flares up from time to time) because it gives him a platform to whine about how we weren't really persecuted.
Yet when he wanted to pick a fight with me over on Christian-to-Christian Debate, he told everyone - including the mod staff - that he was a Christian and swept his being Baha'i under the rug.
First, let me welcome you to the Baha'i Faith forum and, second, thank you for trying to find the answers to your questions at a Baha'i source rather than a 'hearsay' website, which happens frequently. I personally recommend this website which can take you in many directions...
Someone is a Baha'i if that individual has accepted Baha'u'llah as the Manifestation of God for this Day/Age. It is rare that a committed Baha'i refers to him/herself as being of their past religion. Unless born into a home with Baha'i parents, the average member of our Faith, of their own volition, came from another belief system - each with the understanding that Christ, Krishna, Buddha et al. has "returned" as promised. We ARE the Baha'i Faith and self-identify as "followers of the Glory [of God]" (ie., "Baha'is").
Shalom, WC
Ye have been forbidden in the Book of God to engage in contention and conflict... ~Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas
First, let me welcome you to the Baha'i Faith forum and, second, thank you for trying to find the answers to your questions at a Baha'i source rather than a 'hearsay' website, which happens frequently. I personally recommend this website which can take you in many directions...
That's the one I found while looking for info.
Someone is a Baha'i if that individual has accepted Baha'u'llah as the Manifestation of God for this Day/Age. It is rare that a committed Baha'i refers to him/herself as being of their past religion. Unless born into a home with Baha'i parents, the average member of our Faith, of their own volition, came from another belief system - each with the understanding that Christ, Krishna, Buddha et al. has "returned" as promised. We ARE the Baha'i Faith and self-identify as "followers of the Glory [of God]" (ie., "Baha'is").
Hence my concerns; said person simultaneously claims to be Baha'i and yet on at least one occasion has still professed Jesus as a savior rather than as a Manifestation, indicating that they regard themselves as Christian (note that this is above and beyond self-identifying on several occasions).
Thus, the dilemma: am I dealing with a person who converted to Baha'i but is in possession of some misbegotten notions, or am I dealing with someone who fell into the faith because it was a fad / phase of some sort and hasn't yet let it go?
The touchstone of our beliefs is the Writings of our Faith, not individual interpretations.
Would suggest that a strong grasp of them could show you the truth of matters.
As a start, you might challenge statements by asking for a quotation from the Writings, supporting them. Then you might come here and we would quote you what we have on that concept or subject in our Scripture.
There are millions of Bahá'ís but our determining factor is whether the Faith accepts someone as a Bahá'í in good standing.
How do Mormons decide the issue of who is a believer correctly and faithfully representing their teachings?
How do Mormons decide the issue of who is a believer correctly and faithfully representing their teachings?
The church has a system in place in which the core theology is taught and then re-taught multiple times over, utilizing the concept of repetition in order to help the membership learn and retain the core theology. How it works is that the Sunday School lessons are taught on a cyclical fashion. One year is spent on the Old Testament, one year is spent on the New Testament, one year is spent on the Book of Mormon, and one year is spent on church history and the Doctrine & Covenants. Once all four years have been completed, the cycle starts all over again. Thus, every few years the membership will get a refresher course. Members of the church hoping for admittance into Brigham Young University must also complete a seminary course which consists of the same material being taught once more, and the material is taught once again in even more depth during the college-level institute classes.
Additionally, under most circumstances a full year is devoted to studying the canonized teachings of a single modern-day prophet; right now, however, the church has asked that we study from the just-released updated version of the manual for investigators and new converts to ensure that everyone is familiar with the material.
And if a person actually shows up to attend a church meeting, the instructional manuals can be had for free; the church pays for the printing fees out of the general tithing fund.
The end result is that anyone who's been a member for a long enough period of time should have a fair grasp of what is and isn't a part of the official theology. And in a situation wherein a person is unsure, answers are just a mouse click or phone call away. We've also been encouraged to exhort and educate one another in order to ensure that people don't go astray. In fact, in my congregation I'm one of the go-to people for answers.
As a plus, many of the older instructional manuals, manuals which are no longer in active use, are still in circulation; even in my area, which is heavily Southern Baptist, I can still find a fair amount of older pieces on the second-hand market or in the hands of collectors. Those with the patience to seek after them are generally rewarded by the content, both from the historical perspective (such as a family history instructional manual I have that was written well before the rise of the personal computer; it considers microfiche the height of record-keeping sophistication ) and the theological perspective.
*A quick way to tell if something has official sanction or not is to look for the copyright. Since the 1970s, all material published or otherwise authorized by the church has had its copyright through either the church itself or through a holding firm known as Intellectual Reserve.
If, on the other hand, you're seeing a copyright from Deseret, Bookcraft, or another publisher, then what you have in your hands might be profitable for study (you're just as likely to find a work of commentary or opinion as you are of theology) but generally does not have any sanction.
) and the theological perspective.