Just to get things started

[Booko]

Well, it looked a mite lonely in here, so I thought I'd kick it off with a passage from Baha'i Writings on the subject of consultation.

The members thereof must take counsel together in such wise that no occasion for ill-feeling or discord may arise. This can be attained when every member expresseth with absolute freedom his own opinion and setteth forth his argument. Should any one oppose, he must on no account feel hurt for not until matters are fully discussed can the right way be revealed. The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions. If, after discussion, a decision be carried unanimously, well and good; but if, the Lord forbid, differences of opinion should arise, a majority of voices must prevail.

(Compilations, Principles of Bahai Administration, p. 42)

I used to use this as the splash screen for a bbs I ran many years ago:

The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions.

[Adventus]

I was just pondering. In Catholicism I can see why some people are iffy when you have a sort of pyramid authority system (although few understand how it really works) where it seems to not include the voice of masses.

In Bahai it seems the voice of the masses is not only encouraged but a it's what ultimately decides what is and what isn't. Do I have that right?

[Booko]

I was just pondering. In Catholicism I can see why some people are iffy when you have a sort of pyramid authority system (although few understand how it really works) where it seems to not include the voice of masses.

In Bahai it seems the voice of the masses is not only encouraged but a it's what ultimately decides what is and what isn't. Do I have that right?

It may be a difference in how the polity is chosen. We have no individuals who have any authority -- only elected bodies. And members serving on those bodies get there because they are chosen, directly or indirectly, by the masses.

In Catholicism do you have any say in your parish priest? Is there a method for selecting from candidates? (In Calvinism there is a method, fwiw) Aren't the bishops and archbishops appointed as well? I honestly don't know if the laity have any role in choosing these positions. At one time they didn't, but I don't know what current practice is.

Also, our elected bodies are made of 9 members. One clergyman can be off somewhat, but it takes a bigger "critical mass" of at least 5 (that's a majority and quorum) for an entire elected Assembly to go bonkers (though to be brutally honest, I've seen it happen at least once in 20+ years, so it can happen).

But I would not say that the voice of the masses rules in all ways. As individuals we are called to be obedient to Assemblies and to the Universal House of Justice. Appeals are possible up to the House, of course.

But the idea of that obedience is that it avoids disunity that rips a community apart, which I'm sure you've seen what happens when egos are in play :cover: I don't think there are too many religions that are totally free of that facet of human behaviour.

Also if an Assembly has made a bad decision but everyone is backing that decision fully, and the results are still bad -- it becomes obvious very quickly it was just a wrong decision and the Assembly can adjust quicker.

We have a sort of two-track polity. There's a pyramid structure of elected bodies, and a parallel set of institutions that are purely advisory.

The advisors are individuals at the local, regional and continental level, but they have no authority. If any of those individuals go bonkers, it's not hard to pick up the phone and call the next level up and ask what the heck is going on. :D

[Adventus]

So the UHJ is the final court of appeals? I suppose they can almost be seen as our body of bishops eh?

It seems pretty similar to what we've got except the voting system, authority, and no earthly Head (Pope).

Gracias...:jump:

[Broken Winged Birdy]

I know this is a bit old, but I just wanted to throw my two cents in.

"So the UHJ is the final court of appeals? I suppose they can almost be seen as our body of bishops eh? It seems pretty similar to what we've got except the voting system, authority, and no earthly Head (Pope)."
Exactly, the House (We prefer House to UHJ most of the time.) is the ultimate authority on all legislative matter. Now, I don't know if only the Pope has interpretive authority, but the Universal House of Justice does not. They cannot interpret the texts and explain what they mean and be infallible about it. We used to have a man named Shoghi Effendi, the Gaurdian, and his power was in interpretation. He died without appointing the next Gaurdian from the male descendants of Bahá'u'lláh, so now we have no interpretive authority. We are free to make individual interpretations, but we cannot ever claim to have the 100% correct answer.

But yeah, I think our system would make more sense to a Catholic than a protestant, even though Catholics have a stronger clergy than Protestants generally, and we have NONE.