Talk:Covenant-breaker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Last edit totally became an apologetic for the larger group which proves apoint I guess as to the hardness of maintain a neutral point of view, So brought back Zoe's corrections as more neutral and non apologetic for either side and also gives in 3 paragraphs the definitions of Covenant Breaking that have existed, instead of a huge volumne defending the practice.

I can see the problem of neutrality you might have had on this. I've edited some other pages to tweak the presentation. It is probably useful to mention that the main group don't consider Ruth White and such covenant breakers because of their dissidence, per-se, but that they challenge the authenticity of the transfer of authority to Abd'ul-Baha. It's not only advancing a "false claim", but opposing a "true claim". But dissidence itself is a bit more fuzzy. In the modern context, dissidence and disobedience largely subjects one to administrative sanction, since Covenant Breaking is very specific. I wouldn't change the presentation, since it's quoted from elsewhere, but a suppliamentary note would be good.

Also, though I don't know how one would write this, there are some who have been "disenrolled" but who are not considered covenant breakers, because it was clear to the Universal House of Justice that they had not understood the covenant upon becoming Baha'is, and their opposition to the head of the faith was out of an ignorance of the meaning of the covenant. Baha'is are not encouraged to hang out with them, because they are, essentially, antagonistic. However, they are not required to shun them, as per the Will and Testament of Abd'ul-Baha. --ChristianEdwardGruber

you're doing absolutely fine there :) As long as you're not talking out of your arse (and you appear to know your stuff so you're not) just edit what you think needs changing, and someone will read over it to make any tweaks. Welcome to Wikipedia -- Tomhab 09:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The "Larger Baha'i Group"?

It seems inappropriate to refer to "the larger Baha'i group". The term implies that there is some degree of parity in numbers between the Baha'i community that recognises the Universal House of Justice and the Orthodox Baha'is who recognise personal successors to the Guardian instead. The former are numbered in millions while the latter seem to be numbered at most in hundreds. The former are in general universally recognised and represented while the latter appear to be limited to a few localities. Simply on the basis of numbers, it does not make sense to refer to the "larger Baha'i group" or the "main group". Unless and until the numbers are of the same order of magnitude, it would seem most appropriate to refer to those who follow the Universal House of Justice as simply the "Baha'i Community". Keeping numbers in context, groups such as the Orthodox Baha'is would then be presented as peripheral to the Baha'i Community, whatever the veracity of the respective claims. As this point would have repercussions through the various Baha'i-related articles, I prefer to read the opinions of other contributors before making changes to this--and maybe other--articles. --202.75.179.10 1 July 2005 12:51 (UTC)

Sorry, that was from me. --Occamy 4 July 2005 18:27 (UTC)
Do you think "Haifan group" would be more appropriate terminology? In an NPOV article about something as contentious as covenant-breaking, it is surely even more important than ever NOT to write the article from the assumption that one of the contending groups is correct and the others are wrong. PaulHammond 11:43, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
To call it the "haifan group" is as ridiculous as calling catholics the "italian group" Peter Deer (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy

Accuracy of statements about succession in the Will and Testament: The Will and Testament of Abdu'l-Baha states that the successors of the Guardian should be his lineal descendents, not any of Baha'u'llah's descendents. This critical distinction indicates clearly that no further Guardians can be appointed and the article should be edited accordingly. 70.22.11.40 03:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not correct. The Will says: "then must he, (the Guardian of the Cause of God) choose another branch to succeed him."(p 12)
Branch refers to male descendants of Baha'u'llah. This is clearly defined in the writings. Cuñado - Talk 04:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
While in the Will and Testament it does indicate that the first born son of the Guardian is his natural successor, it similarly states that if he does not manifest "the secret essence of his sire" as well as "manifest in himself detachment from all worldly things, must be the essence of purity, must show in himself the fear of God, knowledge, wisdom and learning" and does not have the assent of the nine elected from and by the Hands of the Cause, then another Ghusn must be chosen who meets the qualifications. (see page 10 of the Will and Testament in this regard.) On Remey's claims, even if everything regarding his supposed implied appointment and his alleged implied adoption were sound and true he did not have the approval of the majority vote of the selected Hands of the Cause. On the contrary, the custodians were such elected persons, of which Remey was one, and their unanimous conclusion was that Shoghi Effendi had not appointed a successor and that that there were no Aghsan left alive who had not been expelled as covenant-breakers, and thus there was no way that in accordance with the Will and Testament that Shoghi Effendi could have appointed a successor. Peter Deer (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)