First, my understanding is that individuals on the Universal House of Justice are given no special standing outside of its actions as a nine-member unified body.  For this reason, anything said by one or two individuals on any subject is their personal opinion only.  The body of Baha'is give no special credence to personal opinions.  Even were some in the Faith to take those same opinions under advisement, certain theories (which it boils down to) remain unconfirmed by the Universal House of Justice and, therefore, invalid in circumspect.

Second, it's also my understanding that most of the world's theists, irrespective of the religion followed, await a Day when God's Kingdom on earth will become realized.  Whether it be a few centuries or a few thousand years from now that it were to become a reality, what exactly would that be called - how would that be described - if not a theocracy of some sort?  I'd imagine that the reality of such a Day would see all of humanity living under the same Laws of God, designed solely to promote the promised peace on earth.

What a bunch of nonsense garnered from the uninformed baseless suppositions of unsuspecting souls.

Here's a contrasting item personally eyewitnessed. Here is the testimony for what you may think it worth.

The scene is the Bahá'í House of Worship, in Illinois, USA. In the long broad corridor leading to the foundation hall where there is a meeting. At a table stands a youth, he is maybe what, 17 years old? Like another person nearby he has been told not to allow anyone in without their Bahá'í identification card or two witnesses to vouch that the person is a Bahá'í in good standing.

In comes the Universal House of Justice member who obviously doesn't have one.

Guess what? It's a good thing an American National Spiritual Assembly member and a staff member, both known to the youth, hurried up behind him to vouch for him because the young man was politely refusing him admission. So much for influence.

Even the Universal House of Justice itself in the full plenitude of its authority can only legislate what is not in the Writings or the Guardian's interpretations.

If, anyone has a single authoritative quotation; then, let him quote it.

No takers, huh?

Otherwise it is all unsupportable. Any garden variety Tom, Dick or Harry can say whatever he wants, but short of being one of the three Central Figures, the Guardian or the Universal House of Justice itself; it makes not one whit of difference to the Faith and represents only that person's personal speculations and perhaps delusions.

"To none is given the right to put forth his own opinion or express his particular conviction. All must seek guidance and turn unto the Center of the Cause and the House of Justice. And he that turneth unto whatsoever else is indeed in grievous error."

 (Abdu'l-Baha, The Will and Testament, p. 25)

Shame on any who try to scare people by pushing xenophobic nonsense. What next? More creative conjecture?

It is really weird to hear self-identifying "liberal", ex-members, using fear tactics to promote their agenda. Had always thought it was the other side of the political spectrum that was accused of doing that by them.         

Jan 19, 2011 -- 1:01AM, in_my_opinion wrote:

Here's a contrasting item personally eyewitnessed. Here is the testimony for what you may think it worth.

The scene is the Bahá'í House of Worship, in Illinois, USA. In the long broad corridor leading to the foundation hall where there is a meeting. At a table stands a youth, he is maybe what, 17 years old? Like another person nearby he has been told not to allow anyone in without their Bahá'í identification card or two witnesses to vouch that the person is a Bahá'í in good standing. In comes the Universal House of Justice member who obviously doesn't have one.Guess what? It's a good thing an American National Spiritual Assembly member and a staff member, both known to the youth, hurried up behind him to vouch for him because the young man was politely refusing him admission. So much for influence.

OH FOR THE LUVA GOD!

THAT'S A >>>SECURITY<<< AND >>>IDENTIFICATION<<< ISSUE AND EXAMPLE!!!!!!!!!!

IT SAYS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>NOTHING<<<<<<<<< TO the " influence" and sway the UHJ member has when he is in meetings and/or on the phone and/or drafting missives.

"Here is the testimony for what you may think it worth."???????????

IT'S NOT >WORTH< ANYTHING....IT SAYS NOTHING TO THE ISSUE!

A seventeen year old didn't recognize a UHJ member!....SO FREAKING WHAT!?

"What a bunch of nonsense..." INDEED!

Even the Universal House of Justice itself in the full plenitude of its authority can only legislate what is not in the Writings or the Guardian's interpretations.

If, anyone has a single authoritative quotation; then, let him quote it.

No takers, huh?

 Your pathetic assumed prophetic powers fail you yet again-

THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE

BAHA'I WORLD CENTRE

Department of the Secretariat 27 April 1995

Dear Baha'i Friend,

Your email of 19 February 1995 addressed to the Research Department was referred to the Universal House of Justice. In it you quote two phrases which appear in a book you have recently read, and which seem from the context to be citations from Shoghi Effendi. These phrases are "Baha'i theocracy" and "humanity will emerge from the immature civilization in which church and state are separate". You ask whether these references can be authenticated and dated. We have been instructed to send you the following reply.

A reference to "Baha'i theocracy" is to be found in a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual Baha'i on 30 September 1949. This reads as follows:

He thinks your question is well put: what the Guardian was referring to was the theocratic systems, such as the Catholic Church and the Caliphate, which are not divinely given as systems, but man-made, and yet, being partly derived from the teachings of Christ and Muhammad are in a sense theocracies. The Baha'i theocracy, on the contrary, is both divinely ordained as a system and, of course, based on the teachings of the Prophet Himself.

The other passage does not comprise words of Shoghi Effendi, although its purport was approved by him. As you yourself have since discovered, it can be found in The Baha'i World, volume VI, on page 199, in a statement entitled "concerning Membership in Non-Baha'i Religious Organizations", about which the Guardian's secretary had written on his behalf on 11 December 1935: "The Guardian has carefully read the copy of the statement you had recently prepared concerning non-membership in non-Baha'i religious organizations, and is pleased to realize that your comments and explanations are in full conformity with his views on the subject."

The complete paragraph in which the words appear is as follows:

In the light of these words, it seems fully evident that the way to approach this instruction is in realizing the Faith of Baha'u'llah as an every-growing organism destined to become something new and greater than any of the revealed religions of the past. Whereas former Faiths inspired hearts and illumined souls, they eventuated in formal religions with an ecclesiastical organization, creeds, rituals and churches, while the Faith of Baha'u'llah, likewise renewing man's spiritual life, will gradually produce the institutions of an ordered society, fulfilling not merely the function of the churches of the past but also the function of the civil state. By this manifestation of the Divine Will in a higher degree than in former ages, humanity will emerge from that immature civilization in which church and state are separate and competitive institutions, and partake of a true civilization in which spiritual and social principles are at last reconciled as two aspects of one and the same Truth.

You also ask how these statements could be reconciled with Shoghi Effendi's comment on page 149 of Baha'i Administration, which appears to anticipate "a future that is sure to witness the formal and complete separation of Church and State", and with the following words in his letter of 21 March 1932 addressed to the Baha'is of the United States and Canada:

Theirs is not the purpose, while endeavoring to conduct and perfect the administrative affairs of their Faith, to violate, under any circumstances, the provisions of their country's constitution, much less to allow the machinery of their administration to supersede the government of their respective countries.

A careful reading of the letter dated 6 December 1928 in which the Guardian's comment about the separation of Church and State occurs would suggest that, rather than enunciating a general principle, Shoghi Effendi is simply reviewing "the quickening forces of internal reform" that had "recently transpired throughout the Near and Middle East", and enumerating a number of factors that impinge on the development of the Faith in those parts of the world.

As for the statement made by Shoghi Effendi in his letter of 21 March 1932, the well-established principles of the Faith concerning the relationship of the Baha'i institutions to those of the country in which the Baha'is reside make it unthinkable that they would ever purpose to violate a country's constitution or so to meddle in its political machinery as to attempt to take over the powers of government. This is an integral element of the Baha'i principle of abstention from involvement in politics. However, this does not by any means imply that the country itself may not, by constitutional means, decide to adopt Baha'i laws and practices and modify its constitution or method of government accordingly. The relationship between the principle of abstention from involvement in politics and the emergence of the Baha'i State is commented on later in this letter. In the meantime we can quote the following extracts from letters written on behalf of the Guardian in response to queries from individual believers, which indicate that the relationship is an evolving one:

End Quote

bahai-library.com/uhj/theocracy.html

"will gradually produce the institutions of an ordered society, fulfilling not merely the function of the churches of the past but also the function of the civil state."

>That< is a description of a Theocracy.

"make it unthinkable that they would ever purpose to violate a country's constitution or so to meddle in its political machinery as to attempt to take over the powers of government. This is an integral element of the Baha'i principle of abstention from involvement in politics. However, this does not by any means imply that the country itself may not, by constitutional means, decide to adopt Baha'i laws and practices and modify its constitution or method of government accordingly.

>That< is a description of a country CHANGING ITS CONSTITUTION to hand over "the function of the civil state".

>That< is a description of the transition from SECULAR CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY TO BAHA'I THEOCRACY.

"Shame on any who try to scare people by pushing xenophobic nonsense. What next? More creative conjecture?"

Scare mongering conjecture? Go right ahead...tell us the "authoritative quotation" you predicted would not be provided does not say what it clearly says.

It is really weird to hear self-identifying "liberal", ex-members, using fear tactics to promote their agenda. Had always thought it was the other side of the political spectrum that was accused of doing that by them.         

Yea...Who in their right mind would be "fearfull" of a Religious Theocracy with such blatant prejudice towards minority groups? One that  summarily diss-enroles Mystics, Theologians and Academics (without >any< hearing) and SHUNS Gays, other Baha’i denominations, Ex Baha’is and Unenrolled Baha’is as “Spiritual Poison”.

Why would anyone be concerned about such fundamentalists running a country or the world?

In The World Order of Baha’u'llah itself, page 66, Shoghi Effendi had said:

"Theirs is not the purpose, while endeavoring to conduct and perfect the administrative affairs of their Faith, to violate, under any circumstances, the provisions of their country’s constitution, much less to allow the machinery of their administration to supersede the government of their respective countries."

Any intelligent independent truth seekers will read on and research for themselves-

How theocracy happened

senmcglinn.wordpress.com/2008/12/02/how-...

Bahá'ís can be themselves. No amount of categorization and pigeonholing applies to them. Is there a wide range of opinion? Certainly, but it doesn't affect our unity; it enriches it, through its very diversity. Unity in diversity is one of our beliefs. We don't take up sides; we vote our consciences.

Most Bahá'ís sacrificed previously held ideas upon becoming Believers and continue to grow in their understanding and faith. They were strong-minded and serious when they joined and adversity tests them to greater strength.

Freed of necessity to toe a party line because we don't have partisan politics internally and are forbidden by the Text to be involved with them externally or internally; we can theorize and hypothesize, so long as we don't say that it is a teaching of the Bahá'í Faith itself.

For that everyone has to go to, and uphold, the Writings. "Point out the quotation" is the byword. No quotation means no leg to stand on, and good luck persuading that way.

No problem ever divides us. Questions are food for a type of discussion we call Bahá'í Consultation, a process we can engage in at any time and are encouraged to do so with nearly everyone.

From time to time someone with preconceived notions they dragged into the Faith as their baggage, gets miffed and leaves because no one will buy what they're selling. That's fine, too. Adults have rights. They can leave if they feel justified in doing so; its no crime. Other adults have rights, too; we don't have to buy that baggage. That's no crime, either.

Of course it might be bad form to stand outside and hawk your wares at the door, tossing trash at us inside; but we are a tolerant lot, and will clean it up patiently.

It's not like we're sitting in a dreadful Iranian prison for doing charity or being refused our rights as Egyptian citizens for our honesty and humble faithfulness. We should thank you for the chance of the meagre, we hesitate to even call it sacrifice, you provide so generously.

Personally wish to sympathize with any pain you have felt or are feeling. May you be happy.

You're welcome, Rodney dear.