Talk:Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
  • /Archive1 - March 17 2006. Discussions on content during the creation of article in it's initial 4 months.
  • /Archive2 - April 12 2006. Discussions of content on NPOV, verifiability, BUPC lineage, and undue weight.

Contents

[edit] Cunado's rewrite

With all sincerity and earnestness, I'd like to say THANK YOU Cunado! You must have spent a fair amount of time working on this page sorting through all the details. I'm not familiar with your contributions to very many other articles, but I haven't known you to be so fair and objective before. I mean no offense by that; just that we've had our differences over content on many similiar pages, and frankly I was surprised to see such an honest and fair treatment of the BUPC from someone who's stood at variance to us stating our beliefs in the past. I trust you won't mind if I comb through it thoroughly and make minor changes here and there. But, after a quick comparison what you've accomplished seems like an enormous improvement. Go on with your bad self. Jeff 05:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If the issue is with the article has been verifiable information, what about this paragraph?:
Chase points to a series of letters in his possession where Pepe refers to Chase as "my dear boy" and "my boy" as evidence that Pepe adopted him in the same manner that `Abdu'l-Bahá adopted Mason Remey. In one such letter he quotes Pepe as asking: "shall I adopt you?". Chase further asserts his claim of appointment with the fact that the Executor of Pepe's estate was enjoined by Pepe's Will to bestow certain artifacts from Pepe's estate in person to Chase, including the "Locks of Hair and Drops of the Blood of Bahá'u'lláh" that `Abdu'l-Bahá had left for Mason Remey upon His death.
The first three quotes have never been verified. We are to take Chase's word on the matter. The same with Pepe's Will. Notice it is stated as a "fact" that the Executor was to give items to Chase, but I know others who have read the Will question that assertion. If other material has been deleted due to unverifiability, how does this section pass the verifiability test? Davecornell 11:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The section on Pepe's will and the hair and blood is pretty poorly written and unverifiable, but I don't know the details so I left it. I think it definitely needs to be redone. Cuñado - Talk 05:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2 things

1) please please put in accents. It's just sloppy and I'm having to clean it up. 2) Jensen is widely known for his 1980 prophecy, which occupies a large part of his biography, is there a reason it was removed? Cuñado - Talk 08:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

  1. I know, I know. I'll try to get better at the accent thing. It's never been one of my concerns or anything but tedious. I know it's a standard you all have set, so I'll try to get better about it. My POV is that it's a nerdy scholar thing that's redundant as the language of origin is Farsi, and our language doesn't imvolve accenting things, so to translate into English, oh never mind. I'll take care of it.
  2. Yeah, the prediction is part of his bio, so why does it need to be here, was my first thought. The second one was that his "headlines" weren't what you wrote they were, and there's more to it than what you summed up so briefly. But, if you thinks it's important, let's just re-insert it.
Thanks again for all the time and energy. It really does look much better and streamlined. I think I got so caught up in adding to the article, that it was hard for me to step back and see how streamlining it could be an improvement. Jeff 08:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
If nothing else, just say that he was widely known for prophecies/predictions and mention the date. That's my thought. Cuñado - Talk 08:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Jensen's predictions are inextricably linked to the BUPC and should be here. He was frankly notorious for them. The first time I ever saw Jensen was on a Michael Moore special c. '95. I've vivid memories of Moore, ever the grandstander, on a pay-phone in Times Square, with a WWI helmet on, trying to get through to Jensen on the date in question. Not surprisingly he couldn't get through and the person at the other end hung up on him.

I don't think that this can really be separated from the BUPC itself. This apocalyptic vision is certainly characteristic and Chase is carrying on the tradition. MARussellPESE 14:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I know, that's why I put it back in the article myself, along with a link to it in his article; which you'd have known if you'd have taken a moment to look. I said that I removed it because of it's inaccurate wording. I rewrote it and put it back in the same spot with a link.
BTW, it was correspondent Mo Rocca, not Moore, and what you saw was edited for comdey, with the actual conversation he had with us edited out. He did in fact get through and talk to Neal, for which we have a recorded copy of the call, but that's not what the show aired. He was trying to get a hold of Neal, not doc, because Neal was making the predictions at the time. You may or may not know this, but Neal had predicted the first Trade Tower bombing in a press release that was sent out in late 92' which went widely ignored until the Towers were bombed on the exact day he predicted. It was afterwards that Harpers published a full article on Neal. He was in the spotlight for several years for this, as he made further predictions with specific dates; all of which came to pass, and the history of the events proves that Neal has a 100% track record. That's why TV Nation interviewed us. Don't you think we knew that they'd make a big joke of it all? Of course we did, but it got the message out, as there were more dates to come. The day that Mo Rocca was on the phone with the army helmet on in Times Square was the second date that Neal had given for an attack on the city. That night he was being interviewed on Art Bell's Coast to Coast, and at 11:55 EST a report came in over the AP wire that a pilot flying into Newark, NJ told the tower that, "Oh MY God, New York's been NUKED!!!" What he had witnessed was the Edison Gas Explosion which sent a mushroom cloud 200 ft in the air above the city. The investigation concluded that the incident had involved "foul play". Many believed it was an attempt to sabotage the gas lines and cause widespread destruction through the lines. He got that one right, too, and was on Art Bell when it happened who acknowledged this and said he'd never been so freak out. Furthermore, Neal gave the date of Sept. 11th, 2001 in Aug. of 1999. All of this has been covered in the press, and is the reason why clowns like Moore, publications like Harpers, and broadcasters like Bell have covered our group. So, be glib about these matters all you want, but there are some out there with actual credentials who do take us seriously. Jeff 03:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leadership section and the "SIBCs"

There is a paragraph that needs cleaning up but I have no idea how to address it. It's the second one below:

After the Trade Tower bombings on 9-11, a minority of the remaining directors (3) led by the treasurer of the sIBC, formed a Committee of Investigation stemming from allegations levied against Chase for issuing a press release entitled “Limbs of Mankind Quake” on September 11 2001. Ninety days later, in December 2001 Neal Chase issued a statement entitled “Jealousy and Envy Must Go!” which these members took to be his proclamation of himself to be the successor to Pepe Remey as the one seated on the Davidic throne as the current Guardian and President of the sIBC [12]. The treasurer responded by issuing an e-mail statement from herself, declaring Neal Chase a Covenant-breaker, in which she claimed to be the “Chairman of the sIBC”, and whereas she was only the chairperson of the Committee.
In response to this action, the sIBC met at it's regularly scheduled meeting time, and issued and injunction upon the treasurer to “Cease and Desist”. In response to that letter from the sIBC, the treasurer and her committee of two other directors met, and declared that Neal Chase was to be expelled and shunned as a Covenant-breaker which one of them wrote later was for the charge of “alluding to be the guardian”.

It says "...the sIBC met at it's regularly scheduled meeting time...." yet the sIBC had already begun to split into two. So which one of the two does this refer to? I think it needs a lead in sentence or rewording but I'm not sure how to do it. It definitely is an NPOV issue because it implies the sIBC that met was the "true" one. Davecornell 13:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removed quote

I would like to see a good reference for this or leave it out.

On the front of the packet Shoghi Effendi wrote:
“Coagulated drops of Bahá'u'lláh's all-Sacred Blood and Ringlets of His Most Blessed Locks Presented as my most precious possession to `Abdu'l-Bahá’s ‘dear son’ Mr. Charles Mason Remey, (signed) Shoghi March 1922”

Cuñado - Talk 06:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, how about the actual picture of the actual artifact that links to it? What's the problem with this all of a sudden? Are you questioning the authenticity of this? It's a matter of historical record. Didn't you read the quote from Spataro where he's refering specifically to this artifact that we possess? Do you think we forged Shoghi's signature or something? Please explain your concerns.Jeff 07:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I assume you know who Spataro is, so I'm not sure why he holds any weight at all. In the same book he puts the "Apostolic period" of the Faith from 1863 to 1957, when Shoghi Effendi clearly defined it as 1844 to 1921. Spataro also never heard of the Baha'i Faith until 1976, after Remey died. He is not a primary source or an expert.
Outside of an acknowledgement by Spataro and the image on the BUPC website, there is no mention of it anywhere. There is only a mention in God Passes By (written 1944) that "the locks and blood of Bahá'u'lláh" are in the archives building. (p. 347)
So like I said this section is not well referenced and is only supported by the BUPC image. If the image is real (which I'm not doubting or affirming) then the addition of quotations around the term 'dear son' was probably done during the 50 years that it passed through the hands of people who would gain value from having those marks there. But I'm not hear to argue that.
If there is not a decent source then the section should be written differently reflecting the reality of the sources. Please don't add back the quote and remove the reference request, as it's appropriate to remove comments to the talk pages until they are resolved. It's WP policy stated somewhere. Cuñado - Talk 08:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That's funny. You're going to decide which published authors are credible? Where are your credentials? What about Mason's diaries in the archives of the New York public library. Those valid enough? Spataro's book meets every standard for a reliable verifiable source. There are no issues of sources here, so I'll thank you to stop vandalizing the section; and while you're at it please spare us of your speculation regarding matters you know nothing about. Jeff 09:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] quotes

Actually I made an error in my edit summary. The quote was:

"The legislative body must reinforce the executive, the executive must aid and assist the legislative body so that through the close union and harmony of these two forces, the foundation of fairness and justice may become firm and strong, that all the regions of the world may become even as Paradise itself"

It was removed, and at the same time I expanded a quote from Shoghi Effendi. This is not a place to compile quotes, and Shoghi Effendi repeated this. Cuñado - Talk 00:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the logic of deleting quotes with the reasoning being "this is not a place to compile quotes" and then significantly expand on another. I would prefer to see the above quote from the Will and Testament left in and remove the part of Shoghi Effendi's that you added. I think you're being disingenuous with your recent edit labeled "various". I think you're trying to put forth your personal POV rather than the BUPC's viewpoint. Davecornell 02:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
We've gone extremely beyond just stating what the BUPC viewpoint is, and if you would like to add a bunch of quotes then you can't be so selective as to quote Shoghi Effendi say that the Guardianship is essential, and then fail to mention the following paragraph which says the same about the Universal House of Justice.
The above quote was removed just on preference because it was repeated in Shoghi Effendi's quote. I have no objection to having it. I made a rational judgment on relevancy and content.
On a sidenote, the requirements for selecting the Guardian were clear and it's referenced. `Abdu'l-Baha left the approval of the Guardian's appointment to a majority vote among 9 of the Hands. You can throw in a hardly relevant quote saying that the authority of the Hands does not overrule the Guardian, but that doesn't address the issue at all. Cuñado - Talk 06:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] revert

Dave, if you continue to distort the teachings and add summaries that do not reflect the quotes addressed, I will continue to revert you. The nine Hands are given the authority to approve or disapprove of the Guardian's appointment, Shoghi Effendi's quote is not relevant to that issue, and it certainly does not say that they don't have the authority to disapprove. The issue at hand is not even related to this. The issue is that Shoghi Effendi died without having appointed a successor, something not addressed in the writings. Above anything, the Hands had no authority to appoint a successor, only the authority to approve an appointment made by Shoghi Effendi. The quote you added from the W&T was a half-quote which completely distorted its original intent.

As long as you continue to pick away at the article with deceptive edits, I'll be here. Cuñado - Talk 05:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The issue of this section is the criteria for guardianship. I didn't add any quotes. I took the original wording and changed it to reflect BUPC beliefs while still including the majority's viewpoint. BUPC believe in two criteria, the majority believe in three. I don't see the justification in the revert.
As far as the nine Hands' authority, that's your interpretation - it is not a fact. That's why I distinguished between the majority Baha'i belief on this issue and the BUPC belief. This is the BUPC page and should reflect their beliefs, not focus on the majority's. I think that's why this whole thing started earlier this evening because the current wording of this section goes against BUPC beliefs. The majority's viewpoint on the nine Hands issue is already found on the Baha'i Divisions page and is redundant to have it reprinted here.
But I don't see the justification in a complete revert of the last entry since it reflected the BUPC belief and was not stated as fact the way the current wording is. Davecornell 04:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
As long as the teachings are being distorted, I'll continue to revert. An easy resolution for you is to provide some verifiable evidence from Jensen's writings as to what he taught on the subject. So far it appears that you all put your own personal opinions down and say "BUPC believe such and such..." If this was a major issue addressed by Jensen, then the article should say "Jensen said..." with a reference to where it's printed.
As to the issue being reverted, the Will is very clear and the edits were completely distorting it by taking a half-quote and then adding commentary to lead the reader on. If the entire paragraph of the Will is read in its entirety, then there's no doubt as to what it meant. This has nothing to do with censorship, as Jeff claimed in his edit summary. Cuñado - Talk 05:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
If you'll notice, the main heading for this section is "Beliefs" as in "BUPC Beliefs". It is not "Majority Baha'i Beliefs". Your continual mucking up this section with your belief that the Hands play a role in determining the identity of the Guardian is a majority belief and doesn't belong in this section. It is not a universally accepted fact.
This situation is similar to your refusing to acknowledge the Will stating that the Guardian is the UHJ's "sacred head and the distinguished member for life of that body." To the BUPC "there's no doubt as to what is meant," but you interpret it differently. Therefore it is a difference in belief.
As far as a solution, I'd be fine with a link back to the Baha'i Divisions page where the difference in opinion on the Hands' role is and can be discussed. It seems to me the Baha'i Divisions page is the place where all of these differences in belief should be discussed anyway, not in the individual Baha'i groups' pages.
I'm happy to provide verifiable evidence as to the BUPC's beliefs. But it cuts both ways. I'd like to see you and your contributors held to the same standard on the majority's pages as you hold me and the BUPC to. Davecornell

[edit] universally elected

In response to the addition of:

Specifically it can be noted that the Will and Testament explicitly states: "in all countries a secondary House of Justice must be instituted, and these secondary Houses of Justice must elect the members of the Universal one."[1] Even today there are not secondary Houses of Justice "in all countries".

This is absolute nonsense and I can't think of doing anything besides deleting it. One of many examples of you mis-using a quote. If you can quote Jensen saying this then go ahead and quote it. See the following quotes which clearly and directly contradict what you are insinuating...

"By this House is meant that Universal House of Justice which is to be elected from all countries, that is from those parts in the East and West where the loved ones are to be found, after the manner of the customary elections in Western countries such as those of England." (`Abdu'l-Baha, The Will and Testament, p. 19)

Shoghi Effendi said:

"...the establishment of the Supreme House of Justice is in no way dependent upon the adoption of the Bahá'í Faith by the mass of the peoples of the world, nor does it presuppose its acceptance by the majority of the inhabitants of any one country. In fact, 'Abdu'l-Bahá, Himself, in one of His earliest Tablets, contemplated the possibility of the formation of the Universal House of Justice in His own lifetime, and but for the unfavorable circumstances prevailing under the Turkish regime, would have, in all probability, taken the preliminary steps for its establishment. It will be evident, therefore, that given favorable circumstances, under which the Bahá'ís of Persia and of the adjoining countries under Soviet rule, may be enabled to elect their national representatives, in accordance with the guiding principles laid down in 'Abdu'l-Bahá's writings, the only remaining obstacle in the way of the definite formation of the International House of Justice will have been removed." (Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 7)

See also:

"With these Assemblies, local as well as national, harmoniously, vigorously, and efficiently functioning throughout the Bahá'í world, the only means for the establishment of the Supreme House of Justice will have been secured. And when this Supreme Body will have been properly established, it will have to consider afresh the whole situation, and lay down the principle which shall direct, so long as it deems advisable, the affairs of the Cause.(Shoghi Effendi, Baha'i Administration, p. 40)

And of course:

" 'At whatever time all the beloved of God in each country appoint their delegates, and these in turn elect their representatives, and these representatives elect a body, that body shall be regarded as the Supreme Baytu'l-'Adl (Universal House of Justice).' " (`Abdu'l-Baha quoted in Shoghi Effendi, Baha'i Administration, p. 84)

One more, dated 1941:

"At this time when the National Assemblies in the Cause are not yet functioning sufficiently or fully representative of all the various important elements within it, and when some of the Bahá'ís are not even free to practise their faith, despite their numbers, it is quite impracticable to seek to establish the Universal House of Justice. Whenever conditions permit, it will be established. (Shoghi Effendi, Dawn of a New Day, p. 95)

Cuñado - Talk 06:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Cunado, what are you calling "absolute nonsense"? Do you mean the quote Jeff cited from the Will and Testament or the interpretation of "in all countries" to mean every country in the world? Davecornell 16:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

Regarding:

for not upholding their vow to "carry out every aspect of the Guardian’s expressed wishes and hopes"[12]

It's in both our interests to make the article look like a factual and unbiased article, and not some kind of pamphlet or personal webpage. It seems like you're just putting down whatever you want to, preceded by "Jensen taught that..." I've never seen a decent reference for what he wrote about what and when, only a link to the introduction of a book which was e-published. If you want to have sentences like the one mentioned, I suggest referencing it straight to what Jensen wrote, or removing it. The way it's written is sloppy, and that's why I removed it. Cuñado 06:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  1. Please don't post discussion stuff on my talk page.
  2. I don't know about what's sloppy about "believed the Custodians were in error for not upholding their vow...". You apparently had no problem with "beleived they were in error". I've put the statement into several contexts, and none seem acceptable. Let's be honest about whose bias is being shown in high relief here. You just don't want this statement pointed out.
  3. There were two crux issues for him creating the sIBC. First was this one, and second them establishing a body without a legitimate head. The UHJ's head resembles medussa with it's multiple chancellors, or whatever they're called. I'm just trying to establish the purpose for starting over. All the Division groups see these two things as a glaring violation of the explicit instructions that they promised to uphold. They did write it in Ministry. They did promise the Baha'i world this, and failed to deliver. There trite response to this violation is included, so your bias accusation is unfounded. Jeff 07:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that this article must accurately represent the BUPC position. Which, to me, means that the BUPC gets to say what they want, how they want — but opinions expressed have to reflect genuine statements of its leaders. Citations have to be sourced.
In this case, the BUPC clearly believes the Custodians were usurpers, and that should be easy to document. Unfortunately, Jeff, the Custodians selection you use to support this states clearly that they felt that they actually did "carry out every aspect of the Guardian’s expressed wishes and hopes". That selection is exactly the one I'd use to attack this argument of Jensen's. I think you need to use another source. MARussellPESE 15:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, the quality of references is such that I want to delete most of the page. You're wrong on one point Jeff, I have no problem with you stating what Jensen believed and taught, but you commonly state whatever you want and say "Jensen taught..." The sentence I mentioned is not factual or reference, and like MARussellPESE mentioned, referencing the Custodians doesn't add to the argument, because everybody believes that they did fulfill the wishes of Shoghi Effendi. Cuñado - Talk 01:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to go round and round justifying why we don't go along with you all down your path of cognitive dissonance. You believe they did, though they clearly didn't, but they said they did, even though they admit to skipping the statedly clear "essential prelude", and because you've swallowed this obvious violation you think that "everybody" has. "Everybody" doesn't see them as having fullfilled SE's wishes, so why would you make such a statement? Clearly I'm not alone in this concern and criticism of the Custodians, so why are you trying to accuse me of using these pages to put forward my own personal beliefs? I knew nothing of any of this stuff before Doc explained it to me. My beliefs are Doc's beleifs, in a sense. But I was challenged on this accusation early on by MARussell, and I stepped up and tracked down all the resources for all the information in these pages. Don't stand there on your soapbox and threaten to "delete most of this page". What do you want a footnote at the end of every sentence? What exactly is the problem, cuz I'm a little fuzzy on what I should change. I reworded the sentence again today. Is that okay in it's current version? Jeff 04:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes actually I think this version is fine (besides slight grammar to clarify). Cuñado - Talk 04:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1969 Conviction

Please see Talk:Leland Jensen for details on this edit. MARussellPESE 14:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/h/Talk%7EBah%C3%A1%27%C3%ADs_Under_the_Provisions_of_the_Covenant_3492.html"