Courtesy : Reddit.com
The next individual to be elected to the Universal House of Justice will be Juan Francisco Mora.
In the Bahá’í electoral system, with no overt campaigning and politicking permitted, the exposure of potential candidates to electors is a premium. The nine members of the International Teaching Centre routinely travel throughout the world, giving them vital face-time with members of the National Spiritual Assemblies who serve as electors for the Universal House of Justice. In fact, every single one of the current members of the Universal House of Justice previously served as a Counsellor member of the International Teaching Centre.
With the turnover of the Universal House of Justice’s nine members and with the International Teaching Centre‘s being composed of nine members, some of whom are women and therefore ineligible for election to the Universal House of Justice, a man’s appointment to the International Teaching Centre serves as a presumption to eventual election to the Universal House of Justice.
To illustrate further, in a letter dated October 20, 2008, the Universal House of Justice called for a series of 41 Regional Conferences intended to mark the mid-point of the Five Year Plan and motivate participants to re-dedicate themselves to the goals of the Plan upon returning home. The Regional Conferences were held from November 1, 2008 through March 1, 2009.
Each of the 41 Rregional Conferences was attended by two Counsellor members of the International Teaching Centre with the exception of the Conference held at Uvira, the Democratic Republic of Congo, which had only one representative. The Counsellor members of the International Teaching Centre at the time of the Regional Conferences were Juan Francisco Mora, Ayman Rouhani, Stephen Hall, Stephen Birkland, Zenaida Ramirez, Joan Lincoln, Rachel Ndegwa, Uransaikhan Baatar, and Penelope Walker.
Of this cohort of Counsellors, the five lady members (Zenaida Ramirez, Joan Lincoln, Rachel Ndegwa, Uransaikhan Baatar, and Penelope Walker) were ineligible for election to the Universal House of Justice.
Of the four male members at the time of the 41 Regional Conferences (Juan Francisco Mora, Ayman Rouhani, Stephen Hall, and Stephen Birkland), all but Juan Francisco Mora have already been elected to the Universal House of Justice. Given that he has had more exposure to the electors of the Universal House of Justice than any other current male Counsellor member of the International Teaching Centre, it stands to reasonably assume with a high degree of confidence that Juan Francisco Mora will become the next individual elected to the Universal House of Justice once a vacancy opens.
In practice, the Bahá’í electoral system most closely resembles council democracy as it still exists in Cuba, wherein individuals elect Local Spiritual Assemblies, who then elect National Spiritual Assemblies, who then elect the Universal House of Justice. With no politicking or partisanship allowed, there is little turnover in leadership and Universal House of Justice members almost invariably serve until retirement or death. In the people’s democracies of the Eastern Bloc, these career bureaucrats were known as the nomenklatura.
Out of curiosity, how do people get appointed to the International Teaching Centre? What’s the most typical background, and how are they recruited?
Normally, only Continental Counselors gets appointed to the ITC. These Counselors were ABMs before being promoted to the CBC. Before being an ABM they were assistants to ABMs. And only a ‘Tested Believer’ is chosen to work for the ABM.
To illustrate your point…
Current Members of the International Teaching Centre
|Name||Date Appointed||Previous Assignment as Continental Counsellor|
|Rachel Ndegwa||2003||Africa, 2000 – 2003|
|Uransaikhan Baatar||2008||Asia, 2000 – 2008|
|Juan Francisco Mora||2008||Americas, 2005 – 2008|
|Praveen Kumar Mallik||2010||Asia, 2006 – 2010|
|Ramchand Coonjul||2013||Africa, 2010 – 2013|
|Antonella Demonte||2013||Europe, 2010 – 2013|
|Andrej Donoval||2013||Europe, 2010 – 2013|
|Alison Milston||2013||Americas, 2008 – 2013|
|Mehranguiz Farid Tehrani||2013||Asia, 2005 – 2013|
The Baha’i election process is worthless!
Fáṭimih Khánum (1822-1916) was an Isfahání girl who was the second wife of the Báb. Fáṭimih was the sister of a prominent Bábí, Mullá Rajab-‘Alí. She was married around 1847 aged twenty-five, to serve the Báb during His sojourn to Isfahán. In Persia, it was regarded as dishonourable for a woman to serve a man unless she was not related to him. The couple had no children, and after the Báb left Isfahán she did not accompany Him. After His martyrdom, despite the fact that the Báb asked His wives not remarry, Fáṭimih Khánum married Azal for one month, until he divorced her and gave her to Siyyid Muhammad Isfahání. Fáṭimih agreed to these marriages, and is therfore a Covenant Breaker.
These are Baha’i Teachers. The case of Dilavara Mihrshahi is very popular in Panchgani. Each and every Baha’i knows about this. If Baha’is want to spread their religion with these moral values then they are requested to return back to their countries from where they are exported to India.
Baha’i figures have said different things at different times regarding Jesus.
For example, on June 24, 1947, Shoghi Effendi stated (also here) “The churches are waiting for the coming of Jesus Christ; we believe He has come again in the Glory of the Father. The churches teach doctrines–various ones in various creeds–which we as Bahá’ís do not accept; such as the bodily Resurrection, confession, or, in some creeds, the denial of the Immaculate Conception.”
Bahá’ís Must Have No Affiliation with Churches
“…we, as Bahá’ís, must not have any affiliations with churches or political parties. But he feels certain that when you meditate on this matter you yourselves will see the wisdom of it. We, as Bahá’ís, can never be known as hypocrites or as people insincere in their protestations and because of this we cannot subscribe to both the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh and ordinary church dogma. The churches are waiting for the coming of Jesus Christ; we believe He has come again in the Glory of the Father. The churches teach doctrines–various ones in various creeds–which we as Bahá’ís do not accept; such as the bodily Resurrection, confession, or, in some creeds, the denial of the Immaculate Conception. In other words, there is no Christian church today whose dogmas we, as Bahá’ís, can truthfully say we accept in their entirety–therefore to remain a member of the Church is not proper for us, for we do so under false pretences. We should, therefore, withdraw from our churches but continue to associate, if we wish to, with the church members and ministers.
“Our belief in Christ, as Bahá’ís, is so firm, so unshakeable and so exalted in nature that very few Christians are to be found now-a-days who love Him and reverence Him and have the faith in Him that we have. It is only from the dogmas and creeds of the churches that we dissociate ourselves; not from the spirit of Christianity.”
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to the Bahá’ís of Vienna, June 24, 1947)
On May 28, 1984, the Universal House of Justice addressed a letter stating “From a Bahá’í point of view the belief that the Resurrection was the return to life of a body of flesh and blood, which later rose from the earth into the sky is not reasonable, nor is it necessary to the essential truth of the disciples’ experience, which is that Jesus did not cease to exist when He was crucified (as would have the belief of many Jews of that period), but that His Spirit, released from the body, ascended to the presence of God and continued to inspire and guide His followers and preside over the destinies of His Dispensation.”
Concerning the Resurrection of Christ you quote the twenty-fourth chapter of the Gospel of St. Luke, where the account stresses the reality of the appearance of Jesus to His disciples who, the Gospel states, at first took Him to be a ghost. From a Bahá’í point of view the belief that the Resurrection was the return to life of a body of flesh and blood, which later rose from the earth into the sky is not reasonable, nor is it necessary to the essential truth of the disciples’ experience, which is that Jesus did not cease to exist when He was crucified (as would have the belief of many Jews of that period), but that His Spirit, released from the body, ascended to the presence of God and continued to inspire and guide His followers and preside over the destinies of His Dispensation (from a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, 28 May 1984).
Bahai’s in the West have historically argued that their religion is the fulfillment of Christian prophecy, particularly based on Seventh-dayAdventist literature and the teachings of Baptist preacher William Miller. William Sears, named a Hand of the Cause of God by Shoghi Effendi in 1957, was a popular radio and television personality, who wrote a best-selling book, Thief in the Night. William Miller, a Baptist preacher, predicted that on October 22, 1844, Christ would return to the Earth. Although the prophecy was not fulfilled, leading to what was called the Great Disappointment, the Millerites would go on to form the various Adventist churches.
Thief in the Night, argues that Miller’s interpretation of biblical prophecies for the signs and dates of the coming of Jesus were correct and fulfilled by the Báb who declared that he was the “Promised One” on May 23, 1844, and began openly teaching in Iran in October 1844. In 2016, a Baha’i movie came out loosely based on these events called The Miller Prediction.
Did the Baha’is in the Ottoman Empire and the following British Mandate cooperate with the Zionist movement?Posted: August 26, 2017
To give a brief timeline, the Bahá’ís, including Bahá’u’lláh and his family, arrived in Acre on August 31, 1868. Bahá’u’lláh lived in Acre until 1877, when he moved to a mansion in Mazra’a where he lived for two years. From 1879 until his death in 1892, he lived at the Mansion of Bahjí.
The First Zionist Congress was held in Basel, Switzerland, from August 29 to August 31, 1897. The British conquered Palestine from the Ottomans during World War I in a series of campaigns lasting from March through November of 1917. It was only after the British occupation of Palestine that mass immigration of Jewish settlers occurred. Looking at census data for Palestine, for example, in 1922 there were 83,290 Jews and by 1946 that number had risen to 608,225.
On February 23, 1914, at the eve of World War I, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá hosted Baron Edmond James de Rothschild, a member of the Rothschild banking family who was a leading advocate and financier of the Zionist movement, during one of his early trips to Palestine. This event was reported in “Star of the West” magazine.
On September 8, 1919, subsequent to the British occupation of Palestine, at a time when tens of thousands of Jewish settlers were arriving under the auspices of the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association, an article in the “Star of the West” quoted ‘Abdu’l-Bahá praising the Zionist movement, proclaiming that “There is too much talk today of what the Zionists are going to do here. There is no need of it. Let them come and do more and say less” and that “A Jewish government might come later.”
On January 24, 1922, Shoghi Effendi received a letter from Herbert Samuel, the British High Commissioner for Palestine. The receipt of the letter is mentioned in Amatu’l-Bahá Rúhíyyih Khánum‘s The Priceless Pearl. As High Commissioner, Herbert Samuel was the first Jew to govern the historic land of Israel in 2,000 years, and his appointment was regarded by the Muslim-Christian Associations as the “first step in formation of Zionist national home in the midst of Arab people.” Herbert Samuel welcomed the arrival of Jewish settlers under the auspices of the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association and recognised Hebrew as one of the three official languages of the Mandate territory.
While Shoghi Effendi was thus occupied and was gathering his powers and beginning to write letters such as these to the Bahá’ís in different countries, he received the following letter from the High Commissioner for Palestine, Sir Herbert Samuel, dated 24 January 1922:
Dear Mr. Rabbani,
I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of Jan. 16., and to thank you for the kind expression it contains. It would be unfortunate if the ever to be lamented death of Sir ‘Abdu’l-Bahá were to interfere with the completion of your Oxford career, and I hope that may not be the case. I am much interested to learn of the measures that have been taken to provide for the stable organization of the Bahá’í Movement. Should you be at any time in Jerusalem in would be a pleasure to me to see you here.