Sen McGlinn's blog

                                  Reflections on the Bahai teachings

Sermons in the Mashriqu’l-Adhkar (revised)

Posted by Sen on August 20, 2017

This posting, dedicated to Jackson Armstrong-Ingram, presents a short section for my next book: the chapter is on the Mashriqu’l-Adhkar, which is both the Bahai House of Worship and a Bahai devotional meeting, wherever it may be held. The topic here is sermons. Because I’m writing for an academic book, there are [footnotes] at the end of the posting.

The Bab encouraged his followers to listen to sermons on Fridays. Denis MacEoin summarizes:

The formal sermon (khutba) is to be followed by impassioned preaching (maw`iza) and by mention of him whom God shall manifest. These Friday gatherings are to be held in the mosques which the Bab ordered constructed. The use of a pulpit is prohibited, this being replaced by a chair or, in a large gathering, a chair placed on a platform to enable all present to hear. [n. 1] By Wmpearl (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Baha’u’llah seems to have been silent on the topic. The same can be said of Abdu’l-Baha, except that he is quoted as saying:

Within the Mashriqu’l-Adhkar there will be an organ [n.2] and galleries, [n.3] and a preaching-chair (kursi khatabah) [n.4] especially for prayers and the service of worship, [n.5] but sermons (khatabat) may also be given there. [n.6]

A khatabat is “the act of preaching a sermon; eloquence, rhetoric” (Steingass). It is the word used in historical accounts for the ‘talks’ Ab gave during his travels: a sermon is simply a talk on a religious topic, especially in the context of a meeting or building for worship. [n.7] A kursi is a seat, chair or throne, but also a pedestal or pulpit. A kursi khatabat then must be a preaching-chair, and in Abdu’l-Baha’s vision (echoing that of the Bab) it is used in the Mashriqu’l-Adhkar for giving sermons.

O far as I know, Abdu’l-Baha’s words during his stay in Chicago, November 3, 1912, as reported by Mahmud Zarqani and translated above, are the only definite statement that “sermons may also be given” in the Mashriqu’l-Adhkar building. A single oral source must be counted as weak evidence.

The problem in finding evidence is not lack of mentions of sermons, but rather that in most cases it is not clear whether the meeting or building concerned was a Mashriqu’l-Adhkar in the mind of Abdu’l-Baha. For example, he writes:

Likewise the public meeting in which, one day during the week, the believers gather, to be engaged in the commemoration of God, to read communes and deliver effective speeches, is acceptable and beloved. (To Louise Waite, in Star of the West Vol. 1 Nr. 5, June 5, 1910, p. 11.)

That commemoration (probably dhikr), prayers and speeches go together in the mind of Abdu’l-Baha is clear: the problem is that in the tablet that says that such “meetings are the Mashriqu’l-Adhkars,” no speeches are mentioned. [Note 7A] I have not yet found evidence for or against the argument that including ‘speeches’ made the meeting not a Mashriqu’l-Adhkar, in Abdu’l-Baha’s conception. The argument would not be an arbitrary one: in these tablets Abdu’l-Baha might have been leading the early western Bahais in the direction of establishing the Feast meetings, which are not public but do include speeches and argumentation. For example, one letter says:

This Feast was established by His Highness the Bab … The believers [must] … chant divine verses, peruse instructive articles … and deliver eloquent speeches. (Tablets of Abdu’l-Baha Vol. 2, 468)

Were it not for the mention of the Feast at the beginning of the letter, one might easily think that the remainder of this letter was about a devotional meeting.

As for Shoghi Effendi, and in relation to the specially designed Mashriqu’l-Adhkar in Wilmette, two letters on his behalf say that “he feels that [meetings in the Auditorium of the Temple] should be purely devotional in character, Baha’i addresses and lectures should be strictly excluded,” and “No speeches may be made.” [n.8] Yet in 1953, when the Mashriqu’l-Adhkar in Wilmette was to be dedicated, Shoghi Effendi sent his wife, Ruhiyyeh Khanum, as his representative, and an address delivered by her in the auditorium of the Mashriqu’l-Adhkar was part of the programme. [n.9] Shoghi Effendi also writes that the Mashriqu’l-Adhkar “is consecrated exclusively to worship, devoid of all ceremony and ritual,”[n. 10] but since the question is whether the Bahai central figures thought that a sermon was or could be part of Bahai worship, this takes us no further.

Given the limited references I have found, I cannot exclude the possibility that Shoghi Effendi (assuming his secretaries accurately reflect his thinking) differed from Abdu’l-Baha, but it is equally possible that when Baha’u’llah said, in response to a question, “Whatever hath been constructed for the worship of the one true God … must not be used for any purpose other than the commemoration of His Name,” he was already excluding sermons.[n.11] In that case, Mahmud Zarqani’s memories of Abdu’l-Baha’s words would be discarded as a misunderstanding, and the occasions when Shoghi Effendi’s programmes for the worship services included an address, or the reading aloud of an address originally delivered by Abdu’l-Baha, are exceptions. And God knows best.

sermon implies a speaker, and a place and time of meeting that is widely known, and the expectation that many in the community will attend at that time. The “ceremony and ritual” excluded by Shoghi Effendi would also imply collective attendance by at least a portion of the community at a particular time. The obligatory prayers, if they are recited each one for himself, do not imply such a general devotional meeting, especially as the times at which the obligatory prayers should be performed allow a range of many hours. If we could get clarity as to whether Baha’u’llah and Abdu’l-Baha envisioned sermons as part of the devotional meetings and as taking place in the Mashriqu’l-Adhkar building, it would be an indicator of the shape of community and devotional life they anticipated. But alas, research does not always lead to answers!

Updated August 31, 2017, added “The problem in finding evidence …” and note 7A.

Notes:

1. Rituals in Babism and Bahaism 34. The reference to “impassioned preaching” is from a ms. copy of the Bab’s Haykal al-Din, the other specifications are given in the Persian and Arabic Bayans.

2. عرغنون , the word is used for pan pipes, which were among the ancient instruments of Iran.

3. Per. غرفات, alcoves, chambers or halls. Based on Abdu’l-Baha’s own design for the Mashriqu’l-Adhkar in Eshqabad, he is probably thinking of recessed internal balconies analogous to the second floor choir lofts in Gothic architecture, but deep enough to provide substantial seating.

4. کرسی خطابه Ironically, in the Persian translations of Bahai sources in English, such as Shoghi Effendi’s God Passes By, کرسی خطابه is the Persian term chosen to translate ‘pulpit,’ which in turn is Shoghi Effendi’s equivalent for minbar. But as we have seen کرسی خطابه appears first in the Bahai writings as a permissible alternative for the outlawed minbar.

5. ‘The service of worship’ translates one word: عبادت. Literally, that is ‘worship,’ but is difficult to see what the preaching-chair could be used for, additional to reciting prayers, unless it is for the use of a person providing or coordinating a series of prayers and readings: a ‘service’ in other words.

6. My translation, Mahmud Zarqani, Ketab-e Badayi’u’l-Athar Vol. 1 352. The translation by Mohi Sobhani in Mahmud’s Diary reads (p. 371): “In the building there will be an organ, balconies and a rostrum especially for prayers and devotional programs but addresses may be given there as well.”

7. For example in ‘Mahmud’s diary,’ (Mahmud Zarqani, Ketab-e Badayi’u’l-Athar, two volumes). In the English reports of Abdu’l-Baha’s travels, he is often described as delivering a sermon, when he speaks in a church.

‘Sermon’ also appears in the Babi and Bahai writings as one of the modes of scripture. Baha’u’llah for example wrote a خطبه for the marriage service, which is in various circumstances an optional or obligatory prelude to the marriage vows. But this is not a sermon in the usual sense of the word: it is a reading from scripture. Baha’u’llah writes “the sermon should be read [but] is not obligatory (باید خطبه خواند … خطبه فرض نیست ) (quoted by Ishraq Khavari, Ganjineh-yeHodud va Akham, 172). Another frequent use of the term is in the writings of Abdu’l-Baha, where he urges the Bahais to present proofs (burhan), explanations (bayan) and talks (khutbat). But this in the context of ‘teaching’ (mission) not in the devotional meeting.

7A. “The friends should hold a gathering, a meeting, where they will acquire the habits of reciting dhekr and fixing their hearts on God, and reciting and chanting the verses and writings of the Blessed Beauty … These meetings are the Mashriqu’l-Adhkars that, according to the decree of the most exalted Pen, must be established in every city and village.

“When they are established, the private meetings will be abrogated. But for now, when public gatherings have not been established in the land [Iran?] because that would cause the wicked and ungodly to raise a storm of opposition, it would do no harm if private gatherings were to be established, in which no more than nine souls are present. The point is that no large group – which could readily give rise to alarm and confusion among the ignorant — should be present … Baha’u’llah instructed us to observe wisdom. In the lands today, no more than nine of the friends should gather in one place, which is in accordance with wisdom.

“The point is, in the revealed laws of religion, the place for worship and the public reading of scripture is the Mashriqu’l-Adhkar, alone, which supplants all gatherings and meetings for worship. But philanthropic gatherings, deepenings, meetings for consultation and profitable discussions are also permitted, indeed they are necessary and incumbent. But today, in accordance with wisdom, none of these are possible. Therefore for now, meetings devoted to spirituality must suffice, and at present the first fruits of all meetings must be service to others. You must support one another and be the beloved of the Lord. So far as possible, the meeting should improve the conditions of humanity until, God willing, the Mashriqu’l-Adhkar is established in all its majesty and glory. Then this restriction will be abolished.” (My translation, from Amr wa Khalq Vol. 3 143-4 and Vol. 4 148-9. There is a partial translation in Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha 93-94)

8. (A) On behalf of Shoghi Effendi to the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States and Canada, April 2, 1931 (or in one report, April 11); (B) on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States, April 11, 1947. The phrase “extraneous matter” echoes a 1921 letter from Nellie French to Miss Buikema, which was published in Star of the West on March 21, 1922. French writes, “It had distressed me greatly that, in some places … extraneous matter was being introduced into the regular Baha’i meetings until these meetings had lost their spiritual illumination, growing thereby into intellectual pastimes rather than into an humble and reverent attitude toward the Words of the Messengers. When I mentioned these things to the Master he looked up with that inimitable smile and said: ‘Ask them where in the teachings of Baha’u’llah they find these things.’”

9. Armstrong-Ingram, Music, Devotions and Mashriqu’l-Adhkar 286-88. Shoghi Effendi’s programme for the two services mentioned above, to be held in the Auditorium of the Mashriqu’l-Adhkar on May 22, 1944, included selections from public talks of Abdu’l-Baha, yet another letter on his behalf is reported to have excluded “Public Talks and Tablets of ‘Abdu’l-Baha” from “the devotional services in the Temple.” The latter letter is referred to but not cited by the Universal House of Justice in a letter to the National Spiritual Assembly of Uganda and Central Africa, August 19, 1965. It is possible that we have two secretaries at different times conveying contradictory versions of Shoghi Effendi’s thinking, or that the House of Justice has misunderstood the letter it refers to. Another letter on behalf of Shoghi Effendi (April 2, 1931, cited op. cit. 256) specifically includes prayers revealed by Abdu’l-Baha in the programme for the Mashriqu’l-Adhkar auditorium, and his programme for the 1953 dedication of the Mashriqu’l-Adhkar, again in the auditorium, includes a reported talk of Abdu’l-Baha (op. cit. 288). Armstrong-Ingram suggests that this latitude of including addresses (which are sermons by another name) may be because at that moment the Auditorium was not yet dedicated to worship alone (op. cit. 290)

10. God Passes By 350.

11. This is by no means obvious from the Persian text: آنچه از مساجد و صوامع و هياکل که مخصوص ذکر حقّ بنا شده ذکر غير دون او در آنها جايز نه

Advertisements

8 Responses to “Sermons in the Mashriqu’l-Adhkar (revised)”

  1. Ruhiyyih Khanum was sent as the Representative of the Guardian of the Faith to dedicate the Wilmette Mashriqu’l-Adhkar. Her words were spoken on Shoghi Effendi’s behalf and constituted a simple declaration of dedication, consisting of four sentences followed by a prayer from Baha’u’llah. The text is in Volume XII of the Baha’i World, at pages 141 and 142. Here is an image of these dedicatory remarks. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/u09iyqtyt5ean55/AADVcSKjnDBhuLyJp94iYmfza?dl=0

  2. Gerald Keil said

    As in the case of Wilmette, Ruhiyyih Khanum presented a short address during the dedication of the European Mashriqu’l-Adhkar in Langenhain, Germany. These are special, once-only situations, and I suspect that, if you investigate the matter, you will find that the dedications of the other Mashariqu’l-Adhkar around the world will have been handled similarly. This is in each case a one-off situation, and clearly Shoghi Effendi handled in accordance with the motto “the exception proves the rule.” If you have a legalistic bent, you might just consider that the building first becomes a Mashriqu’l-Adhkar after the dedication ceremony has been closed. That’ll get you out of it quite nicely.

  3. Sen said

    Indeed, and Jackson Armstrong-Ingram had already noted that point, see my note 9. But it still leaves us with the peculiarity that a ban on sermons so widely supposed to exist, cannot so far be found in the Bahai Writings. Neither of the two letters on behalf of Shoghi Effendi are framed as interpretations of the Writings. As you know, not every letter from or on behalf of Shoghi Effendi is an interpretation of writings and teachings, because he was also acting as the administrative head of the community and making decisions appropriate to a particular case, without intending to establish a permanent principle. The situation in Wilmette was unusual, in that Albert Vail had a paid position, effectively as pastor to the Bahai community, and a significant part of his role was to deliver sermons for Bahais and public presentations of the Bahai teachings. Vail was a former Unitarian Minister who supported the Bahai Movement, as it was then called, and was forced to resign as a result. In 1918 he moved to Chicago, and from there worked as a paid Bahai teacher until 1932. He was largely responsible for leading the Sunday meetings before the first services were held in the Foundation Hall of the partially-built Mashriqu’l-Adhkar, and his talks and views dominated. But this gives two possibilities: either Shoghi Effendi had no need to say that sermons were banned in the Mashriqu’l-Adhkar building (or meeting?), except in the case of Wilmette, because in Eshqabad and Iran this was already understood, or he did not intend to lay down any general principle but made a temporary administrative decision in the case of Wilmette, because a single person and a single style of sermonizing was dominating there.

  4. fpvrcmower said

    “Hearing” is the key word to focus on.

    Baha’u’llah knew that the Babi had persecution. So saying little on a matter that would highlight was a safety issue for Bahai

    Today technology lets “hearing” and by chair elevation “seeing” for lip recognition a matter of electronic interpretation.

    A server that hosts “eloquent” talks is the stage Shoghi Effendi anticipated would have the Word of God “spread like wild fire”

    So let’s start a radio/Tv/podcast/vlog broad cast for “hearing” and “seeing”

  5. Sen, you mention in comment #3 above, “Neither of the two letters on behalf of Shoghi Effendi are framed as interpretations of the Writings.” I’d like to begin here, because as you know in his Dispensation letter, Shoghi Effendi described his interpretive power in this way:

    “…the Guardian has been specifically endowed with such power as he may need to reveal the purport and disclose the implications of the utterances of Bahá’u’lláh and of ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá…” This statement appears to me to be an elaboration of the verse in the Master’s Will that the Guardian is the “expounder of the words of God.” http://www.bahai.org/r/189137811 The Guardian’s statement in the Dispensation may or may not be properly characterized as an “interpretation” – perhaps it is better described as a restatement in different words of the verse from Abdu’l-Baha which, perhaps, constitutes “expounding”. Anyway, my broader point is – unless Shoghi Effendi specifically cites a passage in the Writings when he provides a directive, I don’t think it can be said with certainty when he is, or is not, interpreting. When he did so, he didn’t need to justify to the believers each time that his guidance was rooted in the Text.

    Another aspect of divinely-inspired interpretation is that it may differ from our own personal understandings of the Writings. When Abdu’l-Baha was in Chicago on October 31, 1912 He is reported to have said, “…Bahá’u’lláh, appointed a central authoritative Personage, declaring Him to be the expounder of the Book. This implies that the people in general do not understand the meanings of the Book, but this appointed One does understand.” This is also stated by Baha’u’llah in Section LXXXIX of the Gleanings, “Know assuredly that just as thou firmly believest that the Word of God, exalted be His glory, endureth for ever, thou must, likewise, believe with undoubting faith that its meaning can never be exhausted. They who are its appointed interpreters, they whose hearts are the repositories of its secrets, are, however, the only ones who can comprehend its manifold wisdom” Something may be quite obvious in the Text to the appointed interpreter and not at all obvious to us – “the people in general.”

    My personal view is that Shoghi Effendi is often making interpretations when he does not explicitly say that he is doing so. In this posting you are seeking a verse from the Baha’i Scriptures as distinct from their authorized interpretations on “…whether the Bahai central figures thought that a sermon was or could be part of Bahai worship,” and you suggest, “Baha’u’llah seems to have been silent on the topic.” To me it seems quite plausible that Shoghi Effendi’s determination that no sermons can be given in the Temple auditorium is his exposition of the implications of the words “to listen to the verses of God” in paragraph 115 of the Aqdas:

    “Blessed is he who, at the hour of dawn, centering his thoughts on God, occupied with His remembrance, and supplicating His forgiveness, directeth his steps to the Mashriqu’l-Adhkár and, entering therein, seateth himself in silence to listen to the verses of God, the Sovereign, the Mighty, the All-Praised.” http://www.bahai.org/r/025029040 Baha’u’llah does not say explicitly “no speeches may be given” but this could well be the verse from which the Guardian has determined that the Scripture so provides. Shoghi Effendi does root the guidance on the manner of worship in the Temple in the Aqdas when he writes that “the central Edifice of the Mashriqu’l-Adhkár … should be regarded … as a House solely designed and entirely dedicated to the worship of God in accordance with the few yet definitely prescribed principles established by Bahá’u’lláh in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas.” http://www.bahai.org/r/532452371

    There is another letter from Shoghi Effendi and another on his behalf in which he states that no sermons may be given in the auditorium, found in the compilation on Services in Baha’i Temples http://www.bahai-library.com/compilation_service_bahai_temples . In a cable to the US National Spiritual Assembly dated July 1, 1946 the Guardian stated “MEETINGS IN TEMPLE AUDITORIUM CONFINED READING HOLY SCRIPTURES AND PRAYERS…” (See Section #450 in the compilation). In #451 a letter written on his behalf refers to the instructions of Abdu’l-Baha and then says that “Chanting or singing will be the only sound (aside from reading)…”, so the Guardian’s requirements are apparently implicit in the Master’s guidance as well as that of Baha’u’llah.

    I have placed a PDF of the compilation on Services in Baha’i Temples here for a short time:
    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rtlwpcssvz660sz/AABQxP4-Nl2sUSx2exnfM-6ta?dl=0

    Success in your search for Truth
    Brent

  6. Sen said

    An authoritative interpretation would serve my purposes Brent, although not as well as finding a statement from Baha’u’llah that there can be no sermons in the Mashriqu’l-Adhkar. The problem — especially in the case of Shoghi Effendi’s correspondence — is how to distinguish a statement of principle from an ad hoc decision applying to a particular case.

    I have already mentioned two letters on behalf of Shoghi Effendi in the main posting (as revised). Perhaps we are speaking of the same thing. The first says

    As to the character of the meetings in the Auditorium of the Temple, he feels that they should be purely devotional in character, Baha’i addresses and lectures should be strictly excluded.
    For the present, he feels that there would be no objection to having Baha’i meetings including addresses and the business sessions of the Convention held in the Foundation Hall. Shoghi Effendi would urge that choir singing by men, women and children be encouraged in the Auditorium and that rigidity in the Baha’i service be scrupulously avoided. The more universal and informal the character of Baha’i worship in the Temple the better. Images and pictures, with the exception of the Greatest Name, should strictly excluded. Prayers revealed by Baha’u’llah and the Master, as well as the sacred Writings of the Prophets should be read or chanted, as well as hymns based upon Baha’i or non-Baha’i sacred Writings.”
    (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to Mr. Lunt, corresponding on behalf the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States and Canada, April 2 or possibly 11, 1931. Different versions of this letter have different punctuation.)

    It is not just the absence of reference to scripture, and the fact that I have not found any scripture on this point, that led me to say the letter is not framed as an interpretation. The delegation of the matter to a secretary. and the words I have placed in bold, also make it impossible for me to be sure that it is an interpretation or an instruction, rather than a suggestion of procedure for a specific case. But his intention could embrace both: he might have felt confident that the exclusion of sermons was Baha’u’llah’s intention, but have felt that an ad hoc suggestion would serve now, as he or a future Guardian would provide the general principle at a later date.

    The second that I referred to briefly says:

    “As regard the whole question of the Temple and services held in it: he wishes to emphasize that he is very anxious, now that this first and greatest Temple of the West has been built, and will, within a few years, be used for worship and regular services by the Baha’is, that no forms, no rituals, no set customs be introduced over and above the bare minimum outlined in the teachings.
    The nature of these gatherings is for prayer, meditation and the reading of Writings from the Sacred Scriptures of our Faith and other Faiths; there can be one or a number of readers; any Baha’i chosen, or even, non-Baha’i, may read. The gatherings should be simple, dignified, and designed to uplift the soul and educate it through hearing the Creative Word. No speeches may be made, no extraneous matter introduced.

    “The use of pulpits is forbidden by Baha’u’llah: if, in order to be more clearly heard, the person stands on a low platform, there is no objection, but this should not be incorporated as an architectural feature of the building.

    As he already informed you by cable, he thinks that the best seating arrangement from every standpoint is that the section of the audience in the center of the auditorium, beneath the dome, should face towards ‘Akka, and all the other seats around this central space should be placed in the form of a circle so that the seats face inwards towards the center of the Temple. In other words a central mass facing ‘Akka-wards. surrounded by circular rows of seats facing inwards.

    The reader should stand where he or she will be best seen and heard by all. All minor details regarding this matter are left to the discretion of your Assembly to decide after receiving the advice of experts. As he already informed you, he suggests using fixed rather than movable seats.

    Vocal music alone may be used and the position of the singers or singer is also a matter for your Assembly to decide; but again, there should be no fixed point, no architectural details marking a special spot. Acoustics should certainly be the main consideration in placing the singers.

    The Guardian feels that the Temple, if divided into an auditorium and eight or nine small rooms, would have a far too circumscribed seating capacity for a National House of Worship and that also the small rooms would serve no useful purpose whatever. In view of this he instructed you to do away entirely with these superfluous rooms: the whole main floor of the building should form one vast auditorium with no dividing walls at all. What provision for keeping the cold out, and what entrances you wish to make constant use of, are matters for your Assembly to decide after receiving expert advice.

    Color may be used in the interior and, indeed, it was Mr, Bourgeois’ intention to use it, as the original cross-section showing the interior, which now hangs here in the archives, shows: (The photographic plate and reproduction of this drawing you already received.) The Guardian feels very strongly that you should adhere as much as possible to the architect’s own design for the interior — otherwise the homogeneity of the building will be destroyed, which would be a fatal mistake. Any modifications should be in the nature of eliminating or simplifying — and only when absolutely necessary – Bourgeois‘s designs, and such changes should only be made by an experienced architect and decorator, and not be left to the discrimination of mere laymen.

    He approves of lighting being employed as part of the decorative scheme, but suggests you avoid anything in the nature of producing a gloomy or bizarre effect.

    As he cabled you, he approves of opaque white glass being used wherever recommended on the ground floor in order to provide the interior with the necessary privacy.

    Very careful consideration should be given to the acoustics of the auditorium, and wood or any other material may be used in the interior in order to facilitate this.

    The use of all nine or only a certain number of entrances is left to you to decide in consultation with your advisers.

    He need not tell you how very important the decisions are which you will now he called upon to make in connection with completing the Temple interior. He urges you. at all times, to receive the very best technical advice, and to bear in mind that the main thing is that the meetings in the Temple should be conducted in a beautiful and peaceful setting, in comfort and with dignity and simplicity, and that the audience should be able to hear perfectly and the tone values be pleasant to the ear.

    Baha’i Music

    Music, as one of the arts, is a natural cultural development, and the Guardian does not feel that there should be any cultivation of “Baha’i Music” any more than we are trying to develop a Baha’i school of painting or writing. The believers are free to paint, write and compose as their talents guide them. If music is written, incorporating the sacred writings, the friends are free to make use of it, but it should never be considered a requirement at Baha’i meetings to have such music. The further away the friends keep from any set forms, the better, for they must realize that the Cause is absolutely universal, and what might seem a beautiful addition to their mode of celebrating a Feast, etc., would perhaps fall on the ears of people of another country as unpleasant sounds — and vice versa. As long as they have music for its own sake it is all right, but they should not consider it Baha’i music.

    Acts of Immorality

    Any blatant acts of immorality on the part of the Baha’is should be strongly censored [censured – this is an OCR text]: the friends should be urged to abandon such relationships immediately, straighten out their affairs, and conduct themselves as Baha’is; if they refuse to do this, in spite of the warnings of the Assembly, they should be punished through being deprived of their voting rights. The N.S.A. is empowered to settle such cases of flagrant immorality without referring them to the Guardian.

    Formation of National Assemblies
    In Central and South America and Canada

    As he already informed you by cable, the West Indies, Mexico and Panama are considered part of Central America … [etc., it’s a very long letter]
    (Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to the National Spiritual Assembly of the United
    States, April 11, 1947: Insert with Baha’i News, No. 232, June 1950.

    Taking the letter as a whole, I can’t say it reads to me like an interpretation of the Bahai teachings.

    Then there’s a section in the compilation on services, beginning “From an article based on instructions of the Guardian…” This seems to be written by an author, as a distillation of letters received by the NSA. That’s a pity, because the line “This is not permissible: there must be no speeches in the auditorium” is framed as a general rule.

  7. Hi Sen, the statement that “for the present” business meetings can be held in Foundation Hall which you refer to as an “ad hoc suggestion” does not refer to the subject at hand – sermons/ addresses / lectures/ speeches in the Temple auditorium. It is saying that in the future when there is a more appropriate place than the Foundation Hall which is underneath the Temple auditorium, then business meetings etc. won’t be held there, either. My reading is that the “for the present” comment is about proper use of Foundation Hall, not about limitations in the Temple auditorium proper.

  8. Sen said

    You are right of course Brent: the specific meaning is about the uses of the Foundation Hall, which was distinguished from the auditorium so that the various restrictions on the use of the Mashriqu’l-Adhkar would not apply to it. The phrase is just one part of the tone of that letter that makes it read — to me — as a set of responses to a specific situation rather than as a statement of principle or interpretation of scripture.
    I have suggested some signs we can use to distinguish Shoghi Effendi’s interpretative writings from his administrative decisions here, in my response to Fazel and Fananapazir’s work (scroll way down or search on “commentary”)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: