My experience as a member of the Baha'i Faith By Dennis James Rogers
I became a member of the Baha'i Faith in the early seventies while an undergraduate at a small private midwestern university. The initial attraction was to the social teachings of the Faith particularly the tenets about gender and racial equality. I had been raised as a Roman Catholic and had attended parochial and public schools, but was not very well versed in Biblical Christianity. Since the sixties and seventies were a time of social upheaval and turmoil, the Baha'i Faith seemed like a rational alternative to traditional religious dogma. My connection to the group was minimal during my college years but picked up after I graduated in 1973. I had "accepted " the Faith based on a conversation with a Baha'i teacher who asked me if I agreed with the basic nine tenets of the Faith, I told him I did and he said I was a Baha'i. This was quite ironic considering that one of the basic tenets is "independent investigation of the truth". I had not taken the time to investigate nor done a thorough examination of it's history or doctrine, something that I would not do until many years later while pursuing a role as a Baha'i apologetic.
In 1974 there was an International Convention held in St. Louis to initiate one of the plans that the Baha'i Administrative Order imposes on the rank and file. The plans originated with Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, they are ten-year plans, five-year plans, four-year plans, and seven-year plans or as little as one year plans. The plans have goals for teaching (expansion and consolidation) and "pioneers" which are similar to missionaries with the exception that pioneers are not subsidized by the organization, pioneers are expected to finance their own travel expenses, find employment and establish themselves as part of the city, village or community in which they are pioneering. The pioneer is to teach the faith, find new converts, establish a local spiritual assembly, (a local governing body consisting of nine adults) and then move on to a new pioneering post after the task has been completed. The Universal House of Justice, the international governing body for the Bahá'is, generally established what the goal areas were with input from the National Spiritual Assemblies, the national governing bodies. I must comment that many pioneers I met, rarely if ever established Local Spiritual Assemblies and generally left their "posts" to return home. Pioneering is considered a glorious spiritual station and a certain degree of social pressure is put upon the members to become pioneers. The pioneers I met in the United States who came from the Middle East, primarily from Iran, were people of means, educated and wealthy. The early pioneers of the Baha'i Faith (from the West} were also people of means. This can be verified by the early written Baha'i history of the United States and Canada.
Being a new member of the group, I was not aware of the Baha'i culture, I was first asked to answer telephone calls from people interested in the Faith, there was considerable publicity on television, bill boards and newspapers about the convention with a phone number to call for people interested in finding out more information concerning the Faith. I was to answer questions, secure addresses and phone numbers to send literature for follow up by Baha'i teachers. The older members, not wanting to answer phones, attended the conference, which was presented by the ruling Baha'i elite. The nine members of the Universal House of Justice and the remaining living "Hands of the Cause". The Hands were individuals who had been appointed by Bahá-u-lláh, Abdul Bahá or Shoghi Effendi. The rank and file members, due to their high spiritual station of "servitude", regarded them as spiritual giants. Their main function was to protect and propagate the Faith. They were to protect the Faith from schism, but were apparently unsuccessful after the death of Shoghi Effendi in 1957, the only appointed Guardian of the Baha'i Faith. There have been, since his death, two main splinter groups, the Orthodox Bahá'is and the Bahá'is Under the Provision of the Covenant (BUPC) that I am aware of. I do not know what the other group's membership numbers are or their exact doctrines since contact with them is forbidden. They are to be shunned as "covenant breakers" and are considered "spiritually diseased" by the Baha'i Administrative Order. To be quite honest, I really was not that interested in them.
I attended a general session where several of the "Hands" spoke. Most of the talks were anecdotal in nature, encouraging the members to bring in more converts and step up the "teaching efforts". Though Bahá'is claim they do not proselytize, semantics, all their efforts are aimed at bringing in more new members to establish the "New World Order"; this is to occur when there are mass conversions or "entry by troops". A term I discovered taken from Sura 110 in the Qu'ran entitled. "Help". (Rodwell's edition pg.429).
One of the elements that I found disturbing during the conference was an underlying anti-Christian sentiment, which is what eventually contributed to my leaving the Bahá'is later, it was and is something not so overt as much as an arrogant attitude that many Bahá'is feel. There were Christians offering literature outside of the convention center, which were not allowed in, and heavily criticized by the Baha'i attendee's. They consider themselves to be spiritually superior to Christians because Bahá'is believe they have all the answers to humanity's problems for this day. One of the "Hands" stated that most Christians "were dead from the neck up." I purchased this speech on audiocassette tape and had also heard the comment live. This individual was upset that the Christians had more heart and moral fiber than the Bahá'is. Christians were getting into Africa, South/Central America and Asia with missionaries before the Baha'i pioneers could "open" those areas. This "Hand" also felt that Americans were really not worth trying to teach the Faith to, since they were so entrenched in the culture and their churches. They were basically doomed, not worth saving. The Bahá'is should therefore concentrate their efforts on native peoples who did not have so many "veils". A term frequently used by the membership to denote someone who could not accept the station of Bahá-u-lláh as God's savior for the world. After the conference was over, I was introduced to a Baha'i couple that lived in the municipality where I resided. This introduction and my experience with this couple would have lasting implications for me for the rest of my life.
Mr. and Mrs. Smith, as I will call them, were a very charismatic and charming couple, they took me into their home and became my "spiritual parents". Though I did not live with them I spent much time there. They were in their mid forties and had an adult daughter, whom I never met. Mr. Smith was about six foot four and had a very intimidating presence if he chose to and Mrs. Smith was about five foot seven and on the full figured side. She was very soft spoken with a mild southern drawl.
The couple immediately took me under their wing, seeing I was a new young and impressionable recruit gave them license to teach me as they saw fit. We began having "firesides", weekly teaching meetings in their home, for "seekers" as they are referred to (potential Bahá'is). We held public meetings at the local library and community center, picnics at parks, anywhere we could attract attention to the Faith to bring in new members or seekers to invite to firesides. During this time I became a very persuasive teacher under Mr. Smith's tutelage and as a result many young people "declared " their belief in Bahá-u-lláh, including one of my older brothers, his wife and several of my friends. So many people were enrolling in the Baha'i Faith, coming to firesides and meetings that it attracted the attention of the National Spiritual Assembly and they began to send people to investigate our activities. I found out decades later that the more conservative Baha'i administration at that time were alarmed at the number of "long hair hippie types" and African-Americans who were enrolling into the Baha'i Faith. Professor Juan R.I. Cole, a historian and former member of the Bahá'is has gone into this in some detail in a published paper entitled "The Baha'i Faith as Panopticon". The website address is; www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/199... For those wishing to read the article.
The Smiths had me under their control and completely indoctrinated into the Baha'i Faith. I was their "spiritual son" and anything Mr. Smith said I took as truth. He began handing out "fez's", hats like the early Middle Eastern Bahá'is wore, to the younger male Bahá'is in the community. A symbol of his discipleship I suppose. This was alarming to the members of the National Spiritual Assembly who really took offense at this action, but did not confront Mr. Smith about it directly. I on the other hand and the other new young believers thought this was normal, wearing the fez, since none of the other older Bahá'is in the area said anything to him or us about it. At this time I was alienated from my family and former non-Baha'i friends. Everything I did was Baha'i, I felt I had all the answers and refused to listen to anyone else outside of the Baha'i Faith. Mr. Smith began to get verbally abusive and authoritarian with me if I disagreed with him on any issue. He never struck me, but he did on one occasion force me to prostrate myself before him and beg for forgiveness because I had disappointed him. I had wanted to get married and start a family and he wanted me to move away to another state with him. I need to add without going into to much detail that Mr. Smith sometimes would slip drugs into glasses of punch that he would give me and others to drink while we were guests in his home. On several occasions after giving me the "punch", he proceeded to lock me in a small room on the second floor of his house, a prayer closet he called it, and tell me to pray and meditate. Several times I hallucinated while in the "prayer closet" and he would grill me as to what I had experienced. It was some years later that I realized what he had done to me and how sick an individual Mr. Smith really was. To this day I do not know what the nature of the drugs were he had given to me.
The Smiths moved away out of state, as there were enough adult members in the community to form a Local Spiritual Assembly. (LSA). I was elected Chairman of the LSA and had been in that position for less than a year when the Assembly was summoned to a meeting at a local hotel with members of the Baha'i Administration. I must add that when Mr. and Mrs. Smith left the area I was greatly relieved and thought to myself "good riddance". I did occasionally speak to him on the telephone, when he called to see how I was doing.
What happened next when the LSA met with the Administrative representatives was something that I had kept to myself for over twenty years. We, the Local Spiritual Assembly members, thought we were going to be praised for all the teaching activity that had occurred and tripling the number of new believers. On the contrary, we were seated in a large hotel suite and then I was read a list of charges against me which included "conspiring" with Mr. Smith to run the Local Spiritual Assembly from out of state and for "claiming a station", whatever that meant. When I protested and attempted to defend myself, I was told to "sit down and shut up, we know all about you and anything you say will be just lies." I said I was leaving and they locked and blocked the door leading out of the room, there were about seven of them and they forced me and the other members of the Local Spiritual Assembly to listen to them for two hours. This is what the Bahá'is call "loving and frank consultation". I was humiliated, demeaned and my character assassinated in this meeting. Two of the members of the Local Spiritual Assembly came to my defense and stated that the charges were not true and that the picture that was being presented of me by them was inaccurate. My accusers never confronted me; I came to find out later that the National Spiritual Assembly and other Administrative bodies had used members of the Local Spiritual Assembly and the community as "informants". The concept of due process is foreign in the Baha'i Faith.
The result of this "consultation" had me removed from the assembly and ostracized from the community at large. Several of the Local Spiritual Assembly members left the Faith after this incident; as did several people that I had taught the Faith to. I seriously considered it, but decided not to because I was isolated and felt I deserved to be punished because of my association with the Smiths. I was instructed not to ever speak to them or have contact with the Smiths again, but not told why. If they contacted me I was to report it immediately to the Baha'i Administration.
The next step that the Baha'i Administration did was to "reeducate" me in the Baha'i teachings. They arranged for me to attend "deepening classes" (a Baha'i term used to denote in-depth study) with an older Baha'i teacher who had very little regard for me, almost to the point of open hostility. If I questioned him about certain doctrines that did not make sense to me he would become extremely defensive and caustic in speech. One time he hung up on me during the course of a telephone conversation after calling me an arrogant punk when questioning him about a prophetic statement in the Baha'i writings. He stated there was no such passage and when I read it to him over the phone he became very upset and hung up. I did not study with him much after that. Many of the Bahá'is and the Baha'i Administration considered him one of the best teachers in the United States and would rave about him. I found him to be offensive, sarcastic, demeaning to his students and to be without any formal training as an educator. He published a book through the Baha'i Publishing Trust, which I thought was confusing and incoherent, he was in his mid sixties when I met him. Since many of the new Bahá'is we had taught had left the faith, the numbers in the community went down, so I was reinstated to the Local Spiritual Assembly by default. Much of my time was spent planning firesides, public meetings, picnics and fundraising. In the fifteen years that followed there was very little growth in the community in terms of the numbers of new believers, there was a revolving door so to speak, and people would come into the Faith and then either become inactive or just resign. This was particularly true of the African-American Bahá'is coming from a church background. There was very little structure or community life that resembles a church community. Most, if not all of Baha'i activity centers on meetings, teaching activities and fundraising. There was very little time left to develop interpersonal relationships or socialization. One last painful episode, which further alienated me from the faith, was the fact that my wife at the time, we are now divorced, developed a close friendship with a "home front pioneer". These are Bahá'is that move to an area for a short time to fulfill some arbitrary local goal of the Baha'i Administration to establish a group or Local Spiritual Assembly. This individual, unbeknownst to me, tried to coerce my wife to divorce me and marry him during his tenure in the community. She told me about the relationship after he left the country to pioneer to South America. She is still on the rolls of the Baha'i Faith to my knowledge.
During the divorce process the community abandoned me, since divorce is frowned upon. An incident that occurred while going through the divorce, (a year of patience is required by Baha'i law), was when I attended a Baha'i Sunday class where I was confronted by several members of the community and chastised in the class for going through the divorce, I did not defend myself, but I must add that a Persian Baha'i man stood up for me and said in my defense that no one knows what goes on between two people and that it was not for anyone to judge. Despite that I did not attend any meetings for the next two years, nor was I contacted by any of the "friends" during that time. The community has a history of abandoning its members when they no longer can attend the meetings or participate in teaching activities. I cannot truly characterize the Baha'i Faith as a "cult", though in my opinion there are strong social controls in place by the Baha'i Administration. Those controls filter down to the individuals who are afraid of openly questioning the decisions of that administration for fear of being labeled a "covenant breaker". Which is tantamount to being excommunicated from the community. The leadership has used this effectively since the beginnings of the religion to "purge the ranks of the believers". Once a person has been declared a covenant breaker, the Baha'i community shuns that person and contact with such an individual could cause "spiritual contamination" of the "Cause" as it is referred to. There are parallels in the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormon groups, as I understand it. The discussion of "unquestioning loyalty and obedience" to the Baha'i covenant and administration is paramount to maintaining order within the community. Though membership in the Baha'i Faith is completely voluntary, individuals such as myself who based their entire lifestyle around the faith find it difficult to separate themselves from family and friends who are Baha'i even if they know there are contradictions within Baha'i doctrine. One risks those relationships and being isolated from the community. It took me three painful years to extricate myself and resign as an enrolled member. Since leaving the Baha'i Faith in the fall of 2000, I have had little or no contact with people I had been friends with for many years, friends whose children grew up with my children. Most of them believe I lost my faith in God. Those that I have spoken to are surprised that I am doing fine.
Some of the contradictions that began to surface for me were a result of a radio broadcast I heard by Rev. Robert Pardon of the New England Institute of Religious Research (NEIRR) on a Lutheran radio station in St. Louis. He was giving an overview of the Baha'i Faith and I called to challenge him and his sources. I felt he was misrepresenting the Faith and had gotten his source material from "covenant breakers" or enemies of the Faith. I thought about what he had said and contacted him through his web site, I was finally beginning to investigate the Baha'i Faith after twenty-seven years. He sent me facsimiles of his source material and I began to meticulously go over it. Checking it against what had been presented to me by the Bahá'is. I also began writing letters and asking questions of Baha'i administrators and academics. I discovered that several contemporary Baha'i historians and academics had been forced out of the Faith because of their research and publications. Baha'i academics have to go through a review process before publishing anything about the Faith. If an author does not pass the review process one is not published. Their work essentially is censored. This is why almost all Baha'i literature and historical works are redundant. All the books and pamphlets are rewritten from the same "approved" source material. As a result of this, most Bahá'is are unaware of the early history of the Faith, the power struggles that ensued from the founders family members and instead are directed to the Baha'i approved materials. Other sources are considered suspect, labeled as unauthorized or from enemies of the faith.
Though the Faith teaches tolerance for other religions, the truth is taught that the Baha'i Faith is the "Ultimate Truth" for this day. All the previous "Manifestations of God" and revealed religions are essentially null and void. Humanity must follow the Baha'i Faith or suffer severe punishment. Jesus Christ, the Messiah and Savior for the entire human race is reduced to the station of a "Divine Educator". His revelation is no longer considered relevant for this day, in fact Christ's dispensation ended with the coming of Muhammad in the sixth century C.E. The clergy and a misunderstanding of scriptural interpretation have led all Christians astray. Personal salvation is no longer important; the salvation of the human race is the priority now. An intimate personal relationship with God is not possible, " the door leading unto the Ancient of Days is forever closed to man", (paraphrase from the Baha'i Writings). As I began to study the Bible in depth and outside of a Baha'i context, I began to understand the perspective of the Christian objection to the Baha'i Faith. A great deal of the social teachings and all of the spiritual teachings, which the faith presented as new, I discovered in Old and New Testament scripture. Some of the phrases from the Bible I found transcribed into Baha'i prayers. However the main source of contention for me was the arrogance of many Baha'i who became incensed at Christian authors trying to give accurate accounts regarding the Baha'i Faith and it's history. Yet they thought nothing of explaining away two thousands years of historical Christianity and exegetical study, while engaging in the worst form of eisegesis. On a more personal level, I was concerned about my soul and salvation, I never really felt forgiven or saved as a Baha'i or that Bahá-u-lláh was a personal savior. When reading how Jesus taught us to forgive our enemies and to pray for them in the Gospels, I compared that to how the Baha'i Faith historically condemned and shunned its enemies. (Many who were the disciples, spouses and relatives of the central figures of the Faith, even Shoghi Effendi, the Baha'i Guardian, excommunicated his own parents!). I began to ask God to open my eyes and guide me to the truth.
With the help of Rev. Bob Pardon, (NEIRR) Pastor Todd Wilken and Jeff Schwartz of radio station KFUO in St. Louis, I began the task of "testing the spirits" to determine what was true. I tested the Bahá'is by raising questions at Baha'i meetings about historical and doctrinal contradictions as well as prophetic statements in the Baha'i Faith that had not come to pass. Dates had been given where certain events were to have transpired and did not occur. Many Bahá'is were desperately trying to rationalize these unfulfilled prophecies. This line of questioning was making me very unpopular to say the least, particularly when I began to post those questions on the local Baha'i chat list. I started to receive calls from the local Baha'i authorities as well as from some of the "friends". (A term Bahá'is use to refer to each other). I finally officially withdrew my membership and posted it on the chat list. I received numerous calls and e-mails from the "friends" wanting to counsel me, I then posted and requested that I not be contacted, which of course did not occur, finally I posted my reasons for leaving the Baha'i Faith and that I no longer could follow the doctrines or obey the Administrative Order. An Administrative Representative who wished to meet with me concerning my statements contacted me. His real intent was to declare me a "covenant breaker" and therefore have me shunned so as not to "infect" any other Bahá'is with doubt. I agreed to meet with him. He had books with him and was prepared to contend with me. I chose not to engage him on doctrinal issues, I instead stated that I did not believe that Bahá-u-lláh was the return of Christ and relayed to him the incidents I had suffered at the hands of Bahá'is and the Administration. He repeatedly apologized and stated he would ask the Bahá'is to respect my wishes that I not be contacted and harassed about my decision.
I bear no malice towards the Baha'i Faith or individual Bahá'is. Some of them are very kind, gentle and loving souls. This testimony is intended to help those members of the Baha'i community, who may have experienced similar situations and come to a personal realization regarding doctrinal contradictions. There is hope, peace and life outside of the Baha'i Faith for those who choose to seek it
Dennis James Rogers Director Instructional Media Services Fenton, MO
[Professional contact information has been removed, as Mr. Rogers' place of employment is not only irrelevant but violates ROC #3.]
if Dennis would like to make post here... I think that would be great.
but posting someone else's personal contact information over the Internet is not cool.
Mr Rogers made his "personal contact information" available >with< his personal account of his experience within the Baha'i community. Once 'he' had placed his contact information on the Net and in the Public Domain it is perfectly apropriate to reproduce his account in entirety.
One would presume this was to be available to help, support and aknownedge others driven from the Baha'i faith as he was...in the same manner that he was helped and supported.
After all Aka-me, as we all know, there is no support from the Baha'i community when Baha'is are exited...not even a interest or willingness to hear what they had been through.
the point of the article, is so obvious, that I can't even figure out what it is.
You cannot make sense of a clear cut and lucid account of abusive behaviour and proceedural dysfunction?
You cannot grasp and conceive of the effects on good/decent Baha’is of being subjected to such Due Process free abusive proceedings?
"My accusers never confronted me; I came to find out later that the National Spiritual Assembly and other Administrative bodies had used members of the Local Spiritual Assembly and the community as "informants". The concept of due process is foreign in the Baha'i Faith." DR
It matters not to you that such events are not mere aberrations/phantoms....that many Baha’is, myself included, have experienced such abusive behaviours and procedures and bare witness to our experience?
Do you know what it is like to find out you have been accused of some serious offense by some one in the community but to be denied any knowledge of who was bringing the charge and on what basis....and >then< be denied the oportunity to defend against the allegations?
Do you know what it is like to have 'Friends' ring to ask if they can- "Drop in for a social visit, to catch up with you and the family"...to arrive, be shown into your home, offered hospitality...only to reveal, just as they are departing, that they are actually there at the behest of the AO to "raise concerns".........."What are the concerns"?......"Can't say, in a hurry....will tell you next Social Visit"...........!!??
Do you know or care one jot how poorly and abusively Baha'is can be treated after DECADES of faithful service to His Cause and Community?
No.
And from your response to my posts, all other links to like events and Mr Rogers testimony you just don't want to know.
The older members, not wanting to answer phones, attended the conference, which was presented by the ruling Baha'i elite.
the ruling Baha'i elite?
there are deeper issues going on than what's being presented.
there are ALWAYS 3 sides to every situation...
this side, that side, and the truth. presenting 1 side while pretending there are no other sides is either unbelievably naive or outright deceptive.
but...
this forum is not titled Baha'i Anonymous, 12 steps to recovering from a Baha'i addiction.
it is designed to debate the claims of Baha'u'llah
now, if some person which no one here has ever met
lays out one side of story, with no other information presented
then that's the end of debate, good night everyone, time to go home because Baha'u'llah has just been proven to not live up to a single one of His claims.
It seems Mr. Rogers has had his opinions of the Faith colored since leaving it - which isn't surprising, since it's a natural human reaction irrespective of religious context.
A person of a similar experience would be Eric Stetson. Of course, I had actually heard of Stetson and read his story before I converted - and this was before he took it off of his site.
Such stories mean little to me, however. They point out that flawed individuals exist within Baha'i society, sure; but they in no way point out errors in Baha'i theology. Obviously people who have left the Faith probably have a poor opinion of someone or something within it - hence why they left.
Ultimately, what little anecdotal evidence exists on the internet will only prove that a minority of Baha'is have "gone bad" and that such situations are in the minority. Simply posting isn't enough to logically deduce that the entire administration is corrupt - no matter how many times Ex-Baha'is place the blame on it. To repeat a statement I made in another thread, these people never believed in the Faith wholly anyway -- which I"m not saying is a bad thing. We just weren't meant for them. Mr. Rogers, however, at least acknowledge that in his opening paragraph.
So I guess I'll be yet another detractor who will be generalized into fitting some "fundamentalist Baha'i" stereotype.
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
It seems Mr. Rogers has had his opinions of the Faith colored since leaving it –
LOL!
You have my sincere thanks and gratitude kal...honestly...I havn’t belly laughed so hard and long for ages ;-)
You don’t think that...just maybe...if even one third of the abuses Mr Rogers describes are accurate...that >perhaps< he might have “had his opinions of the Faith colored” while >in it<...???? ;-)
The man is describing an domination relationship that included abuses up to and including being “drugged” and locked in a “prayer closet”!
I’m not obliged to accept his testimony as fact....I’m only obliged to consider it >might< be true and >might< be verifiable.....my other obligation is not to presume and dismiss what he is saying as “colored since leaving”.
For to do so may well place me in exactly the same state of ‘Couldn’t happen in my God protected faith’ denial as Catholics confronted with testimony of child abuse.
“...which isn't surprising, since it's a natural human reaction irrespective of religious context.”
That is a possibility...so too is the possibility that Mr Rogers account of events is 100% accurate.
The other real and immediate possibility is that automatic denial is also “it's a natural human reaction irrespective of religious context” when confronted with extremely unpalatable testimony.
A person of a similar experience would be Eric Stetson. Of course, I had actually heard of Stetson and read his story before I converted - and this was before he took it off of his site.
Given that Eric’s views on the Baha’i faith are in the public domain I am happy to discuss them if you wish...but I am uncertain as to how they relate to Mr Rogers experience
Such stories mean little to me, however. They point out that flawed individuals exist within Baha'i society, sure; but they in no way point out errors in Baha'i theology.
And here we are...back to the same point and the same binary consideration division (“flawed individuals”/” errors in Baha'i theology”) as thrice before.
Can we be agreed there is no “error in Baha'i theology”, no ‘structural’ fault in the AO, no general ‘spawn of Satan’ body of believers and that it is and always will be true “that flawed individuals exist within Baha'i”?
Can we be agreed that within the Baha’i community (any large group) there will inevitably arise “flawed individuals”- Sociopaths, Psychopaths, Child Molesters, Sexual Harassers and all else found in the community at large?
Is that a mutual understanding?
If so then what “meaning”, purpose and benefit might Mr Rogers story have for us?
I have already asked what is the common theme in Mr Rogers testimony, in my account, in the Alison Marshall case and the others linked and referred to.
I ask again....specifics and details aside...what is one of the central common ground issues arising?
Ultimately, what little anecdotal evidence exists on the internet will only prove that a minority of Baha'is have "gone bad" and that such situations are in the minority.
Given...agreed....conceded before and now again....>now what<...knowing that a minority of people “go bad” in fairly predictable ways- What do we do as a humane and civilised secular society?...What do we do as a just and compassionate community of faith?
Simply posting isn't enough to logically deduce that the entire administration is corrupt –
Oh Pleeeeeeeaaaaaaaase!...........GIVE IT UP!......No one is saying or suggesting “that the entire administration is corrupt”.....Not Mr Rogers, not Alison Marshall, not the others linked and referred to and NOT ME.
God is not under attack. Baha’u’llah is not under attack. The Baha’i AO, entire or part, is not being called “corrupt” nor is it under attack. All or the majority nor even the “minority of Baha'is who have "gone bad” are under attack.
So what is the common ground issue kal? What is the complaint centred on and related to? Come on...you’re a counsellor with active listening skills....What is it that I keep coming back to and you keep cutting, avoiding and omitting?
“To repeat a statement I made in another thread, these people never believed in the Faith wholly anyway “
And what is the evidence for that assumption kal? That if they had ‘real’ "whole" faith they would have been able to tolerate >any< abuse? That they would have remained Detached and ‘aloof’ and faithful even if they had been attacked by a ‘Wild Arab’ with a sword?
Kal (Anybody)....Here's a simple question....Assuming just for the moment that Mr Rogers story is true...and placing yourself in his situation...which aspect of what he described would be the hardest to cope with?
So I guess I'll be yet another detractor who will be generalized into fitting some "fundamentalist Baha'i" stereotype.
No kal... God is not under attack. Baha’u’llah is not under attack. The Baha’i AO, entire or part, is not being called “corrupt” nor is it under attack. All or the majority nor even the “minority of Baha'is who have "gone bad” are under attack......and you are not under attack.
But as a person trained in counselling you ought to know....you are not responding to what is actually being said...but rather responding to your own assumptions and projections about where I’m coming from.
I invite you to go back and look at the number of times you have done so in this post alone...then square for the priors.
My accusers never confronted me; I came to find out later that the National Spiritual Assembly and other Administrative bodies had used members of the Local Spiritual Assembly and the community as "informants". The concept of due process is foreign in the Baha'i Faith." DR
there are deeper issues going on than what's being presented.
Let me guess.....Wether he knew it or not..."issues with God and the Manefestation"?
It seems to be the going explanation for everything.
I guess the experience described could have nothing to do with it?
And the hostility and rancor in the expression "the ruling Baha'i elite" realy is unwarrented considering the petty and insignificant- no more than a scratch- events he describes.
I'll ask again (and no doubt be obliged to keep asking)...In this account (wether you believe it all or part or not)...as a Baha'i of longstanding....What would be the most difficult aspect of what happened to cope with?
Yes Aka me...and to get to that third party 'truth' requires "this side" (mine) answers "that side" (your) points, issues and questions.......and that you in turn reciprocate.
The latter part of that equasion rarely transpires
presenting 1 side while pretending there are no other sides is either unbelievably naive or outright deceptive.
NOW YOU ARE ONTO IT AKA-ME!.....HOLD THAT THOUGHT!
We have "1 side"...Mr Rogers testimony.
What OTHER SIDE, OTHER ACCOUNT could there/should there be available?
If what Mr Rogers described happened in the context of a University/Workplace rather than the Baha'i community...what would independent third party truth seekers have available?
(And...this is your response to my prior post?...Just wondering...because, once again, there does not seem to be any acknowledgement that the 'other side' said or asked anything).
Can we be agreed there is no “error in Baha'i theology”, no ‘structural’ fault in the AO, no general ‘spawn of Satan’ body of believers and that it is and always will be true “that flawed individuals exist within Baha'i”?
Can we be agreed that within the Baha’i community (any large group) there will inevitably arise “flawed individuals”- Sociopaths, Psychopaths, Child Molesters, Sexual Harassers and all else found in the community at large?
Is that a mutual understanding?
Yes. I agree, such people can exist. But whereas the stories of Mr. Rogers and Stetson seemingly present such people as valid reasons for leaving, I disagree.
knowing that a minority of people “go bad” in fairly predictable ways- What do we do as a humane and civilised secular society?
We try our best to address the issue. And if such an issue isn't resolved, we must simply live with the hope that it someday will. I don't abandon my nationality because I don't like certain aspects of the current American political system; I live with the knowledge that it will someday be addressed, whether by my generation or my posterity's generation. I apply the same logic to my Faith and it's organization. If I see something wrong, I attempt to address it. If it isn't resolved, I live alongside that un-resolved-ness. Or, if I didn't like my Assembly, I'd find a different Baha'i community.
Pause and count the number of times I have “placed the blame on... the entire corrupt administration”.....ZERO.
You haven't directly done this. But by leaving the Faith's organization rather than taking a back seat/being inactive/ finding a different community, you imply this. As does the cases of Stetson and Mr. Rogers. And Alison's case definitely suggests that blame might be placed on the NSA, at least in what I read.
I thought we'd been over this. The Organization itself is holy and central to theology; by leaving it you logically imply something is wrong with it rather than simply people within it. That isn't a red herring; it's the underlying thought in your actions.
No kal... God is not under attack. Baha’u’llah is not under attack.
This is an example of a red herring. I've never suggested you're attacking Baha'u'llah or God. While their might be a link between disagreeing with the present structure and Baha'u'llah's thought, I also understand that Baha'u'llah as an historical figure is separate from the current organization. So I don't even mean to imply this when I state things as I've done above.
My accusers never confronted me; I came to find out later that the National Spiritual Assembly and other Administrative bodies had used members of the Local Spiritual Assembly and the community as "informants". The concept of due process is foreign in the Baha'i Faith
And thus blame is placed on the organization.
What is the common ground issue?
That you've read one conclusion into the cases of various former Baha'is whereas I see something totally separate. The common issue is that people are leaving the Faith because of the actions of others, which is not, in my opinion, a valid reason to leave.
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
No kal... God is not under attack. Baha’u’llah is not under attack.
to someone who happened to hear the word Baha'i Faith for the first time, and happen to walk in here...
yes, Baha'u'llah IS under attack here.
to fundamentalist Christians bashing anything that isn't the Bible...
yes, they dredge up ammo against Baha'u'llah here, because if those who believe in Him can't UNITE, then He is a failure at one fold and one shepard, one planet one family one people.
both Baha'u'llah, and especially His goal of UNITY is most certainly under attack.
how does that feel to be a lawnmower man? must be a real rush.
Yes. I agree, such people can exist. But whereas the stories of Mr. Rogers and Stetson seemingly present such people as valid reasons for leaving, I disagree.
And-
. As does the cases of Stetson and Mr. Rogers. And Alison's case definitely suggests that blame might be placed on the NSA, at least in what I read.
“seemingly present” and “definitely- might”.......Well...there’s no doubt about it then.
Problem is kal....there is also >no evidence< for what you assert in either of the testimonies (Mr Rogers/Alisons) that we have at hand. There is no evidence that Mr Rogers saw “such people [or their abuse] as valid reasons for leaving” and no evidence of Alison laying “blame” on the NSA.
In my prior post I asked a question that you declined to answer-
“ Here's a simple question....Assuming just for the moment that Mr Rogers story is true...and placing yourself in his situation...which aspect of what he described would be the hardest to cope with?”
The reason I asked was to address this assumption that the primary causes of people leaving the Baha’i community are- behaviour of abusive people/behaviour of abusive Institutions. Neither is the case.
If you actually read their accounts carefully and talk/listen to the Alisons, Mr Rogers and Mr Bears of the world you will find they are pretty worldly adults not easily run off by “flawed individuals” or “corrupt institutions”.
Hell kal...I’m a 53yo Welfare Worker who has served in Prisons, Youth Detention Centres, Psychiatric Institutions and Rehab Units...I’ve met and dealt with some >nasty< people and >nastier< governing bodies. I’m a large man from a working class background and I’m no wall flower. So why would I say to you, in all honesty, that of all the things I’ve ever done and been faced with...the Baha’i community was the toughest gig?
Kal....in every other group environment/organization I have ever been involved with (even the worst run and most dysfunctional) there were POLICIES AND PROCEEDURES that protected me. I, like every other worker or member had a range of protective policies- Grievance Procedure, Conflict Resolution, Harassment Legislation, Occupational Health and Safety, Mediation, Appeals Tribunal....>These are the mechanisms that a civil society employs to keep “flawed individuals” or “corrupt institutions” in check.
MOST IMPORTANTLY....These mechanisms ensure I/others have >A VOICE<.....Fair Due Process...Fair Hearing...right of reply and defence against allegation...openness...transparency...record/transcript...right of appeal..............with these things in place I have >a voice< and can defend myself.
Without them I am defenceless and disempowered........and >that< is the common crushing abuse.
Alison Marshal- No fair hearing- no hearing at all.
Mr Rogers- told to "sit down and shut up”.... “The concept of due process is foreign in the Baha'i Faith”.
It is not individuals or Institutions kal, “flawed” or otherwise...it is a collective responsibility to provide Fair Hearing >voice<.
" knowing that a minority of people “go bad” in fairly predictable ways- What do we do as a humane and civilised secular society?"
"We try our best to address the issue."
No, not if that means waiting until “people “go bad” in fairly predictable ways” and >then< “try our best to address the issue”. A “humane and civilised secular society” foresees the dangers and puts protective measures and procedures in place. It does not have ad hoc Courts or make it up as you go along Mediation....but the Baha’i community certainly does.
"And if such an issue isn't resolved, we must simply live with the hope that it someday will."
Or look at why the issue wasn’t resolved and put in place effective-world best practice- issue resolving procedures- Conflict Resolution, Mediation, Restorative Justice.
" I don't abandon my nationality because I don't like certain aspects of the current American political system;"
No....No one abandons their homeland because of vague unpleasant “certain aspects”. People usually become refugees if the abuse is extreme (war/famine) or protracted oppressive- denial of civil rights, censorship...... voicelessness and disempowerment.
"Pause and count the number of times I have “placed the blame on... the entire corrupt administration”.....ZERO."
" You haven't directly done this. But by leaving the Faith's organization rather than taking a back seat/being inactive/ finding a different community, you imply this."
No....I say, suggest and imply no such thing. Not directly, not indirectly. If and when I wish to suggest something is “corrupt” I’ll let you know and state the reasons why. Until then...please stop projecting povs upon me. It is the kind of "emotive rhetoric" that leads to "conflict".
"I thought we'd been over this. The Organization itself is holy and central to theology;"
Not so “central” that I cannot be a Baha’i outside that community/organization according to Abdul Baha-
"To be a Bahai simply means to love all the world; to love humanity and try to serve it; to work for universal peace and universal brotherhood." -- Abdu'l-Baha
"You can be a Baha'i-Christian, a Baha'i-Freemason, a Baha'i-Jew, a Baha'i-Muhammadan" ('Abdu'l-Baha in London, p.97)
And >He< aught to know.
"by leaving it you logically imply something is wrong with it rather than simply people within it. That isn't a red herring; it's the underlying thought in your actions."
Yes indeed....I not only “imply something is wrong” I clearly and explicitly state “something is wrong” and in doing so I have and continue to articulate >exactly< what I believe that to be.
To try to determine for me what I believe is “wrong” and project it as “Institutional corruption” is in itself “wrong”.
"No kal... God is not under attack. Baha’u’llah is not under attack."
"This is an example of a red herring. I've never suggested you're attacking Baha'u'llah or God".
No...It’s an example (when not cut from context) of being obliged to identify >all< the aspects of Baha’i that are not under attack-“ God is not under attack. Baha’u’llah is not under attack. The Baha’i AO, entire or part, is not being called “corrupt” nor is it under attack. All or the majority nor even the “minority of Baha'is who have "gone bad” are under attack.”
All prompted and necessitated by the fact that Bahai’s on this board (yourself included) persist on forging, falsifying and projecting such attacks.
Perhaps they need reminding-“We're here to discuss, hot make conflict. We're opposed to conflict." and- “I'd ask that you don't use such angry rhetoric [“Institutional corruption” ] against Baha'is on this board."
"While their might be a link between disagreeing with the present structure and Baha'u'llah's thought,"
For the 10th? 11th? Time......No “disagreeing with the "present structure”/ Organization/ Institutions is taking place or being made, said, implied, inferred or suggested.
Implementation of >Protective Procedures<....>Fair Due Process< and the like ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE WHOLE COMMUNITY......Grass roots members and AO.
Resistance to, disinterest in, rejection and misrepresentation of such >Protective Procedures< is cultural and widespread...not confined to or stemming from Institutional structure.
"My accusers never confronted me; I came to find out later that the National Spiritual Assembly and other Administrative bodies had used members of the Local Spiritual Assembly and the community as "informants". The concept of due process is foreign in the Baha'i Faith"
"And thus blame is placed on the organization."
No....you are grasping at simplistic/over determined explanations for broader and more subtle/complex events.
The use of"informants" has a history that needs to be understood. Just because it >does happen< in the Baha’i community does not mean it is a ‘Baha’i or Baha’i Institutional’ thing.
“As these anecdotes suggest, to be a Baha’i is to be under constant surveillance by one's community, and to be open to being reported on if one says or does anything that seems to another Baha’i out of the ordinary. The accused has no access to such reports and no right to face his or her accuser. The system of using rank and file informers has a venerable history in the Middle East.”
Cole may be excessive in his description of what it is “to be a Baha’i” but the assessment that "informants" are used within the community is beyond doubt...there are abundant corroborating accounts and admissions from Baha’is. So too the assessment of the origin of this “system”.
But once more and most importantly THE ABSENSE OF FAIR DUE PROCESS IS IDENTIFIED-“ The accused has no access to such reports and no right to face his or her accuser”.
And it is this >VOICELESSNESS<, this denial of the opportunity to speak to the issue and defend against the allegations, year in/year out/year after year, in a community that holds ‘Consultation’ as central.......THAT is the Spirit Breaker.
"The common issue is that people are leaving the Faith because of the actions of others, which is not, in my opinion, a valid reason to leave".
No, no and a thousand times no....it is >not< “because of the actions of others”...not in my case and not in that of the vast majority of other cases I have read and discussed with ex Baha’is over the last decade+. It is not the “actions of others”, the abuse from others, the structure or “corruption” of the Institutions....
In the end it is the >inaction< of others....the “aloofness”, detachment from and tolerance of the abusive “actions of others” and the determined >inaction< when it comes to providing protective procedures- Fair Due Process.
