![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This article is in need of references and sources, especially since it is inevitably a controversial subject. Moreover, it needs a lot of editing to make it NPOV and to keep developments in context. Fortunately, some of the necessary material can be copied from other Bahá'í-related Wiki articles. I have so far worked on the first sections including Shoghi Effendi. More later. -- Occamy 22:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, that last edit (→Charles Mason Remey versus the Universal House of Justice - 'Abdu'l-Bahá's Will and Testament and copy edit) was by me; I thought I was logged in. -- Occamy 21:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I feel that the introduction is inappropriate--and made changes earlier--for three reasons:
I think the Babi section is necessary. It is clearly a part of Bahá'í history (and not at all tangential), and illuminates Bahá'í attitudes toward later schisms. Also, as a technical matter it introduces material that is later necessary.
It's a "Bahá'í division" in the sense that the Bahá'ís were involved in it (as one side). And also in the sense that Bahá'ís see the Babi period as a part of their own sacred history. (Their calendar dates from this--1 BE = AD 1844.)
A lot of the way that Bahá'ís see "covenant breakers" stems from this period. In fact I just read (somewhere) somebody making the point that the Azal / Baha rivalry was a typological (not right word, they said something else) anticipation of the Abdul-Baha / M. 'Ali rivalry.
A technical problem is, the main text now starts kind of abruptly (with the death of Baha'u'llah.) Dawud 09:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I filled in the text of Bahá'í/Bábí split, and will leave it to you to add links to it wherever might be appropriate. Dawud 08:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If we've got a page on Bahá'í divisions, at some stage someone should merge the info at minor Bahá'í divisions to here. PaulHammond 11:04, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
ACtually, I noticed that all the info from that article was already here, so I just set up the redirect there and noted the fact on the talk page. PaulHammond 11:27, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
I don't like the "versus" bit. Sounds... not quite POV, but wrong. Makes it sound like one was out to get the other, whereas it was a disagreement that couldn't be settled (and then led to schisms). Its only a small point. I can't think up any better wording right now though. -- Tomhab 12:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Conclusion, as presented, might need some tightening in its neutral point of view. Bahá'ís do not use the term "AO" as we consider it generally derogatory. May I suggest:
One of the claims of the mainstream Bahá'í community is that the Faith cannot break into sects. Further, they point out that, while small groups or individuals have left the Faith, or been told to leave, these have generally not been as successful attracting followers, or having as widespread effect, as the mainstream Bahá'í community. Indeed, they assert, the vast majority of such schismatic groups are already extinct, and those remaining have few followers, especially when contrasted with the Bahá'í Faith's millions of adherents.
MARussellPESE 22:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
This sub-section is troubling to me. The charges against Jensen are strong and should be supported to conform to NPOV policies, I think. Is there any source material on these?
I acknowledge that getting verifiable independent information on almost any of the post-Remey communities may be next to impossible. Perhaps this whole section needs careful consideration, declaration that much information is unverifiable, or excision. MARussellPESE 16:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
These articles were originally cut and pasted for the most part right out of bahai-library.org's Bahá'í divisions page. They scarcely reflected the actual beliefs of the BUPC. They can barely be considered historically accurate. They are certainly one sided, leaving out critically important facts to arrive at a semblance of the truth. The notion that pasting word for word from the bahai-library is NPOV is laughable. ROFLOL! If the BUPC is an "enemy" of the Bahá'í World Faith as they claim, then how can the BWF library be considered as the end-all-source for information on the group. It is editorially irresponsible. I've repeatedly tried to edit changes back and forth with editors (whose sole source of information on the BUPC seem to come from within thier own Haifan propaganda machine) who have no first hand knowledge of the BUPC's actual beliefs. Unfortunately they have been sorely misled to facts. If any edits that I make are in error then I would certainly welcome the changes. I've never been re-edited for factual errors, but rather had edits reverted to old unfactual half-truths about the BUPC and Dr. Jensen. Thus far every revert to changes I make are editorially baseless. My edits are apparently threatening in some way to the dominate paradigm of belief about the BUPC and Dr. Jensen, which is obviously wrought with error. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong on any of this. User:Jeffmichaud
~This idea of "independant sourcing" is quite a circular argument. The entire archive of information on Bahá'ís in Wikipedia contains not one shred of information from "independant sources", but rather are comprised entirely from information cut and pasted out of bahai-library.com. One can hardly say it's an "independant source", would they? Would information from anti-Bahá'í literature be welcomed to show all sides? I doubt it. It seems my point has been missed entirely. Members of the Bahá'í World Faith would not permit their enemies the opportunity to write their content pages would they? Why then should it be expected that members of any Bahá'í division should sit back and roll over as liable, slanderous, and untrue statements are written about them?
As far as citing sources goes, there wasn't even one source cited for any of the information contained in the page when I first happened upon it two weeks ago. It had been cut and pasted directly from bahai-library.com; stated enemies of the very subject they are writing about. So I figured some editing was in order, but just as in the ranks of the BWF, censorship rules this realm too. I can't seem to make an edit without it getting reverted. The few sources I've provided were deleted immediately within hours after they were posted. It has only been through reposting, and reposting again that even simple quotes from letters appear in it's current version.
This whole idea of sourcing is circular. The BWF pages don't source their beliefs. They link to other categories to validate ideas and beliefs, but in the end they all come from the same source- bahai-library.com. To me, that whole catalogue is merely a collection of opinions, and quotes of opinions. The very foundation of a "faith" is based on personal opinions and personal beliefs. It's quite convenient to demand sources for opinions knowing full well that no Bahá'í Divisions publish books where page numbers can be referenced. They simply don't exist. Does that make those beliefs invalid? They should be excised, right? User:Jeffmichaud
this is not a reference showing direct descendancy from King David, at least not a comprehensible one. As mentioned several times already, Baha'u'llah's lineage is traced to Abraham, and the father of David, but not David himself.
Cuñado
-
Talk
05:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
If you can't comprehend it, maybe the joke's on you. I found it in your reference library and on Shoghi Effendi's Wikipedia page. Can you follow a line? Take note of the word "Exilarch" on that line. It means exiled Monarchs of the Throne of David. You'll note when following that line from Baha'u'llah straight back to David that the image was scanned in two segments and overlap at Yazigird III. Try and stay focused here while following the line, cuz it sounds like this is where you might have got lost. Baha'u'llah, Bostanai, Exilarchs, David, Jesse, Abraham. It's all there. Feel free to ask questions if you get confused again. User:Jeffmichaud
~Heaven's to mergatroid! You got lost along the descendency line, too? MARussell, if you hadn't gotten confused by that scan as Cunado did, you wouldn't have bothered to write a word of that lecture. LOOK CLOSELY and maybe this veil can be removed for you. The scan in your resource library is in TWO pieces. If you're scrolling from the bottom and start following the line from Baha'u'llah upward toward David you will pass by a name on the left: Yazdigird III. Keep scrolling and the thick black line reaches an obvious OVERLAP in the scan right below the second appearance of Yazdigird III's name. You'll see it appears that line runs into Yazdigird III, but it's an obvious error for that thick black line from Baha'u'llah which runs into Yazdigird III is actually contined 1 inch to the right of Yazdigird III's name. The line you've been following breaks there and jumps to the right; the proof is that the one line of Yazdigird III appears twice on the chart within a 3 inch section of the chart. Next to his name (the 2nd one) is a cut off line which is what Baha'u'llah's line is connected to and continues upward to Riunan, Babatan, the Exilarchs, up to Rehabom, Soloman, and David. For the original document click on the Dr. Gonzales link at the top of the page to verify what I'm explaining. Fwoooh! This error jumped right out at me. I can't believe you missed it.
So anyhoo. Dara, Bostanai's wife was the Sassanian descended from Keturah. Through their marriage Baha'u'llah was descended both from Keturah AND Sarah. It's impossible that Him "ruleth"ing from the Throne could be "figurative" since your own resource library is proving it's literal. Furthermore, Shoghi Effendi wrote:
Just as Jesus had to be from the House of David to be the "Christ" (for the title is literally reserved for descendants of the Davidic line (see link for deepening on Jewish perspective); Baha'u'llah MUST have been seated on the Throne of David to be the 2nd Coming of Christ as He claimed to be. For the Christ, or Messiah, must be from that line to own these titles that Shoghi Effendi is verifying that Baha'u'llah had. If He wasn't seated on the Throne of David then he would have been a fraud for claiming to be "ruleth"ing on it, and for claiming to be the "Glory of the Father" for this Glory of the Father/Lord person who is mentioned hundreds of times in the Bible is always seated on the Throne as Isaiah, Shoghi Effendi, 'Abdu'l-Baha, and Jesus point out (search it in Ocean just for fun to verify whether or not it's "important in any Bahá'í Scripture). We also know this is all a point of material FACT for Isaiah clearly states that the "Glory of the Father" would be "established on the Throne of David" in Isaiah Chpt. 9 verse 7 which is the chapter Shoghi Effendi is quoting from to verify that these Titles are all indeed fulfilled in Baha'u'llah. This shows that this was part of Shoghi Effendi's Theology. Why then is it not part of your's? User:Jeffmichaud
~My sincerest apologies to all for my lack of skills and training at resourcing and editing. As most of my energies in studying the Faith for the last ten years have involved little editing, I'm doing my best to catch up to spead with the policies and expectations of this new and exciting world of Wikipedia.
As a point of reference I found Dr. Gonzales' genealogy chart in the external links of a sans-Guardian page on Shoghi Effendi. It links to the Bahá'í Academic Resource Library. It's not my source. If the information is questionable you might want to take up it's content with the scholars at Bahá'í Academic Resources. They were the ones who sloppily uploaded that scan, which noone seems to be able to read properly. Is Wikipedia considered a vaid "source"? If so one can cross check with Exilarch and see that Bostanai most definitely wasn't descended from Yazdigird III, his wife Dara was. This is also obvious on the other Dr. Gonzales chart you provided. There are many other ways to verify this to be true, but those cross checks are a good start.
I will make one last attempt at explaining how to read the Dr. Gonzales [ genealogy, for someone at Bahá'í Acedemics Resource felt it was valid enough to include it, as did the creator of the Shoghi Effendi page. There are 3-4 inches of the chart that are reproduced twice. It appears once on each half of the scan, making Yazdigird III's and his ancestors appear twice. That line from Baha'u'llah going upward passes by it once, then runs right into it at the obvious split 3 inches higher. None of the names line up there. It's an error. At this "line" of demarkation the bold line for Baha'u'llah's Paternal line breaks and skips over. At this break everything above it is appearing a second time for another 3 inches. Never-the-less this bold line goes straight up to David. Ouch, my head hurts.
Again, this is not my chart, it comes from the mainstream Bahá'ís. The other one you've pointed to is a trimmed down version that shows the same thing i've been saying. It stops at Bostanai because among scholars there is no point of contention according to the Encyclopedia Judacai from David to Bostanai(see also Exilarch. It's a given among scholars that the Exilarchs existed in Manzadarin in exile until the 1300's. When Bostanai converted to Islam it created a great controversy over the contination of the line's relevancy in Judaism, hence in the Encyclopedia Judaica you have every Monarch and Exilarch from Judah to Bostanai, then the line ends. But we know that God promised David in Psalms 89 the line would never end.
Look again at this chart you've referred to. It clearly shows what I've been saying. Bosatanai's wife Dara was descended from YazdigirdIII, and Bostanai from the line of Exilarchs. So Mirza Abu-Fazl is correct in saying that he was from the Abraham through the Sassanians (Keturah's line) and Yazdigird III. This was through Dara ONLY. What's more accurate is what the Master said, being that he was descended from both Sara and Keturah, because Queen Dara was from Keturah and King Bostanai from Sarah. Look for yourself. This charts even better than the one in bahai-library for it's clearer that Yadigird III is Dara's ancestor. I hope this makes sense and that maybe anyone even still cares at this point.
If you'd like to see the genealogy we've been involved with creating which lists every single descendant bar none, see. I'd be happy to provide anyone with the resources from this project who care to see them for we actually had something to do with it and have all the records archived for it. It's too much to cite here for it involved 15 years of research. It sure was exciting to learn of Dr. Gonzales' work and how they mirrored what we discovered, although his thoroughness was lacking, I'll give you that.
As far as the reference quoting Paris Talks, I can only repeat that it is one of several quotes where the Master is validating Jesus' claim to be the Messiah, and has nothing to do with his Father. We have clearly different interpretations of this seemingly (to me) Explicit Text. If one reads the several explanations He gave to this subject of Jesus' claim to Messiahship, the spirit of it becomes clear in the syncratic differences of his explanations. All the while he is talking about Jesus' claim to be a Messiah, and that these Old Testament theologies were fullfilled in Jesus spiritually, not physically. A point of historic reference is that while Jesus was hanging on the cross the Exilarch Liuan I was in Babylon ruling on the literal throne of David , whom Baha'u'llah is descended from. So there was a literal Throne existing on Earth while Jesus was alive. Is the Master in Error in stating there wasn't a "material throne of David"? No. He's explaining the spriritual nature of Jesus, in that he didn't literally sit on the Throne while on Earth, but existed in Heaven as a King, even while on Earth. Your interpretation of the Master's explanation has him as a fool who didn't know that there was a "material throne" that had existed. Did David not really exist, or Solomon. Were those things that happened in heaven too? What kind of fool are you trying to take him as. Of course there was a throne. It's just that Jesus's "was not of this earth", as the Jews were expecting. Those references the Jews were expecting to be fullfilled in Jesus were actually fullfilled in the 2nd coming of Christ, Baha'u'llah. The Master and Shoghi Effendi state as much, and here where Shoghi Effendi is readdressing the statements about Isaiah from 'Abdu'l-Baha, he says:
So, these expectations that the Jews had condeming Jesus for not fullfilling are fullfilled in the coming of the Second Messiah, Baha'u'llah. Do you actually believe that no "material throne" existed?
Finally I'll close with this to meditate on regarding whether this subject was ever "a concern to mainstream Bahá'ís". (note the expertise in citing the source ;)
Surely the Master must have known he was the "Prince of the House of David" if Lua Gestinger did, wouldn't you think? User:Jeffmichaud
~I've addressed each and every one of these points in my last post and raised questions of my own throughout this discussion that have never been addressed as well. Either you haven't actually read any of it, or it's your predisposition to your interpolation of the Explicit Texts that's keeping you veiled from Reality. Or, maybe you can see the truth in what I'm saying and simply hate Reality and would prefer your own version of it. If you can't see that I have in fact answered every point you've raised then I can come to no other conclusion than that you hate the Truth even when you're staring at it.
Gonzales' genealogy is from your resouce library. We can put his research aside for the moment for my motive for using it was I assumed it was a point of reference we could agree on using since it came straigh out of the Bahá'í Academics Resource Library, and is an external link on Shoghi Effendi, created by sans-Guardian Bahá'ís.
I'm not sure where you're malfunctioning on all this. I acknowledge Mirza Abu-Fazl's research into the Sassanian conection. We can agree that Baha'u'llah's descended from Yazdigird III, right? Then it is a fact that He's an Exilarch for His connection to Yazdigird III is through the Sassanian Princess Dara. She married the Exilarch Bostanai(see Exilarch for entire genealogy of David), who was Baha'u'llah's great, great, etc. grandfather making Baha'u'llah an Exilarch on the Throne of David. Thus, through this marriage the child sired and male descendants following were [Exilarchs] patrilineally, and Sassanian's matrilineally. Thanks for your contributions which have helped prove what I was saying in the first place.
I've recently started a page for the BUPC and for Leland Jensen. The bulk of the BUPC page was created straight from a "Study of Religions" on Harvard's website plurism.org. Seeing as how the information was a "third party", I thought it was an appropriate source. If anyone's interested in presenting their opinions and specific concerns about any of the content, especially anything "undocumented" and has ideas for solutions I would certainly welcome collaborating any and all concerns, questions, and contributions so that through the "clash of differing opinions the spark of truth can arise".
In my editing the above said reversions, I've been trying to take the oscure non-descript statement Cunado is so fond of and make it reflect the actual beleifs of Dr. Jensen, of which I have firt-hand knowledge of. I'm curious why this would be recieving such violent oposition. I've rewritten it no less than a dozen different ways to include the sentiments of all parties here, and none seem acceptible except the ONE that Cunado has decided should exist. Said statement happens to have originated in the Bahá'í Resource Library from a page denouncing and trouncing the good name of Dr. Jensen. Why would an editor who's interests should be to create a NPOV be using such obviously biased resources to cut and paste from?
I don't know who cut and pasted it, but bahai-library.com is the biased source that the statement originates from. That's quite an accusation, and quite an assumption that you would assert to know anyone's "purpose". If I'm not mistaken these articles are intended to reflect NPOV and not the biased opponions of those who's only intent is to "muddy the waters". The only thing I'm "promoting" is accuracy, something which your version of BUPC beliefs is lacking. [User:Jeffmichaud]
I removed the excerpt about the failed prophecy because it was moved to
Leland Jensen. The idea was to keep this section as short and to the point as possible. I assumed you didn't know it was moved when you restored it.
Cuñado
-
Talk
03:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Jeff continues to change an unreferenced quote, which is incredibly fishy. Does anybody have a source for this quote which is not from a BUPC website? I think Jeff added it originally with no source and it has changed a few times already.
Cuñado
-
Talk
17:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
~Cunado, how is it that you unrelentingly exercise the end-all-authority on what a group you know nothing about BELIEVES? Since when did not agreeing with another groups BELIEFS give anyone the right to censor what those BELIEFS are? You're completely out of line changing anything that has to do with what Jensen or the BUPC BELIEVE, since you have no idea on your own what they believe that wasn't fed to you by the biased, threatened, and FALLIBLE sans-Guardian UHJ.
As far as the quote you're so concerned about, you obviously don't know anything about that either, so where do you come off in editing it? YOU are the one who has deleted the reference of the date of the letter everytime it's been added. YOU are the one who has deleted the concluding sentence everytime I've added it. If you were in the know about this letter, which you are obviously NOT, you would know that everything I've provided is from the same two page letter, and the different parts of it that have been quoted at different times were chosen based on what I beleive is relevent to the paragraph in question. Everyone of those statements are from different parts of the same letter stated in different places, hence the (...) separating the first and second sentences. I've decided that the entire closing paragraph is concise, clear, and relevent. If you'd like to take up reverting it as a part-time job, then so be it. But I'm done compromising with you or any other biased editors when it comes to the beliefs and views of the BUPC. If you don't like what we believe it's truly your problem. Censoring Reality is not a Bahá'í Principle last time I checked. User:Jeffmichaud
~You're not denying that you've reverted every version of the sentence "Jensen's specific beliefs were", are you? No matter how many different ways I've re-written it to accurately reflect what he ACTUALLY taught you revert it's explicitness back to obscure nonsense. Is that not true? That's censorship, Mr. Etiquette.
Weblinks are valid sources? Since when? And, why would a personal letter be published in a book? I have a scanned copy of the entire handwritten letter in my computer; what source are you using to make your edits? And BTW, it was in the original summaries of the group that alluded to letters in the first place. I didn't bring up the letter writing between Pepe, Jensen, and Chase; a sans-Guardian editor did. Your welcome for providing the reference in the first place.
After meditating on the quoted statement I concluded that although what I originally posted was more to the point, having the (...) separating the statements may be construed by some that something is being hidden. Therefore, since the entire paragraph that concludes the letter (which includes all three diff. statements) seems most appropriate as it doesn't contain the (...). So leave it be please, as it is not your place to be editing articles where you have no foreknowledge. User:Jeffmichaud