Talk:Attempted schisms in the Baháʼí Faith/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Sources and Context

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)

Introduction

I feel that the introduction is inappropriate--and made changes earlier--for three reasons:

• the reader first needs an agreed definition of Bahá'ís and the Bahá'í Faith, so it it clear what has been subject to specific schisms
• the word "split" implies that there was some sort of equality; "debate" does not capture the rancour and vitriolic character of the disputes
• the immediate family of Shoghi Effendi did not dispute his leadership of the Bahá'í Faith and did not promote a schism, nor did they "excommunicate" him. --Occamy 06:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Babi material

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.

This assertion is illogical as the article is about Bahá'í divisions; the Bayanis/Azalis do not represent a Bahá'í schism. And Bahá'í history is covered by other articles. To be relevant to "Bahá'í divisions" and to remain NPOV, Anon should explain how his insertion would illuminate Bahá'í attitudes toward later schisms. Also, what is the material that is necessary later? --Occamy 07:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

It might just be simplest to start a Bahá'í/Bábí split page. Occamy has a point since the page is linked by the Bahá'í disambiguation page and so refers only to the Bahá'í side of things. As for the death of Baha'u'llah being the start - most schisms don't occur before the death of its founder. -- Tomhab 10:30, 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)

Merge with minor Bahá'í divisions

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)

Internet based activists Vs Instiutional.....

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)

Proposed Conclusion Edit

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)

Be bold! I think what you've got here is much better than what's on the article now - so I'm changing it. PaulHammond 11:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. This suite of articles has certainly created no small amount of acrimony and vitriol. Given that, I feel it to be in better taste and moderation for me to post suggestions in "Discusstion" rather than blast them into an article. Not quite the "Be Bold" of Wikipedia, but more my taste with highly-charged issues. I'd rather seek opinions than spark an edit war.--MARussellPESE 17:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Your proposed conclusion looks fine and should not be regarded as being excessively bold. --Occamy 20:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

BUPC material

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)

BUPC Material/Leland Jensen

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

Actually, I've seen precious little citing of sources on this page and no talk by anybody since this little imbroglio got started between Cuñado and Jeffmichaud. Nobody's edits appear to be supported by any independent sources. A classic edit war that makes nobody look good. MARussellPESE 18:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting stuff on Leland Jensen would be very welcome here - but as has been mentioned, since it's a very controversial subject whatever is written needs to be sourced, not just someone's opinion. PaulHammond 23:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

~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

Actually the main Bahá'í history pages, like sections in the Bahá'í Faith page, along the the Baha'u'llah page and the `Abdu'l-Baha page have gone through many many iterations from non-Bahá'ís that have made sure that the pages are NPOV and have third party references like Brittanica, and the BBC (and historical statements that the Bahá'ís don't like from Maulana and William Miller) Go check the talk pages, especially on the Baha'u'llah page, and see the references on Mirza Yayha.

The pages that relate to belief, are just that, and don't need 3rd party references, as in the Obligatory Bahá'í Prayers page, that's in the writings, so that's it. Thus the historical sections of the Bahá'í divisions page and Leland Jenson page should be sourced, ideally from a non-Bahá'í source and a non-BUPC source. If that's not possible, then both points of view should be made in a clear fashion. -- Jeff3000 13:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a history page not a beliefs page. Historical issues are to be sourced per wikipedia policy. Beliefs should be clearly identified. What's getting stuck in everybody's craw here are the numerous beliefs masquerading as facts and facts lacking attribution. As a point of fact, I believe that I was the first to express misgivings about the whole section. MARussellPESE 14:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Jeff, stop reverting me. I'm not your enemy. This page should be summaries and not entire articles. Now that you started pages for Leland Jensen and Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant this section needs to be cut down. Right now it's the longest section, and does not represent the most significant group. The section for BUPC should mention how it differs from the Bahá'í Faith and other groups. The links are there for more information if anybody wants to dig in more. Cuñado - Talk 20:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding?

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

According to this, and assuming it's authoritative, there is a line to David, but it's matrilineal. Rahab, Salatiel's (sp?) daughter and Sasán's mother, is a woman. In Jewish practice the monarchy, never, but never, passes through a matrilienal relationship.

Further, the patrimony also falls to the eldest son in Jewish custom. There's no evidence in the seventeen names falling after Solomon that each and every one was the eldest male. Further Salatiel, Rahab's father, was clearly the second-born son, so if his father held the patrilineal line to Solomon and David, he could not pass that on. Bahá'u'lláh does not inherit any patrimony from David.

So according to this, and again assuming the chart's authority which I'll grant for the sake of discussion only, Bahá'u'lláh could claim descent from David, albeit only a matrilienal one. Curious that he didn't, isn't it? Could it be that it doesn't matter? Being seated upon the throne of David could well be figurative, but that's inconvenient to Jensen's claims — hence the argument. MARussellPESE 14:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not Baha'u'llah is a direct descendant from David, that was never important in any Bahá'í scripture. It is not explicitly mentioned, but descendancy from Abraham was mentioned. No authority or connection was ever claimed linking descendancy from David to leadership.

Back to the article. Just mention what Jensen's beliefs were, and not mention his beliefs as facts. Cuñado - Talk 19:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

~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:

"To Him Isaiah, the greatest of the Jewish prophets, had alluded as the "Glory of the Lord," the "Everlasting Father," the "Prince of Peace," the "Wonderful," the "Counsellor," the "Rod come forth out of the stem of Jesse" and the "Branch grown out of His roots," Who "shall be established upon the throne of David..." (Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 94)

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

Because it's not part of the Guardian's theology. Curious that it is a point of material FACT" that the Master states clearly that the "Throne of David is an eternal kingdom."

The Jews were blind to reality. The real Christ came from the city of light in the eternal realms Christ is a king. His shepherd's staff, that is, his tongue, was a sword dividing the true from the false. The throne of David is not a material throne but an eternal kingdom. Christ re-established this kingdom; it has been forgotten. Christ conquered the east and the west. This means a spiritual victory, not a material one.

('Abdu'l-Bahá, Divine Philosophy, p. 36)

and:

Hearken, and I will show you the meaning thereof. Although He came from Nazareth, which was a known place, He also came from Heaven. His body was born of Mary, but His Spirit came from Heaven. The sword He carried was the sword of His tongue, with which He divided the good from the evil, the true from the false, the faithful from the unfaithful, and the light from the darkness. His Word was indeed a sharp sword! The Throne upon which He sat is the Eternal Throne from which Christ reigns for ever, a heavenly throne, not an earthly one, for the things of earth pass away but heavenly things pass not away.

('Abdu'l-Bahá, Paris Talks, p. 56)

You ask me to take your word on the Guardian's theology — I think the Guardian would rather that I take the Master at His.

None of that is actually pertinent discussion to Wikipedia. Why this assertion that Bahá'u'lláh is a direct patrilineal descendent of David and heir to that patrimony has no place on wikipedia is grounded on several points:

First, once again Jeff, do you have a source for Gonzales' work? Please review Wikipedia:Cite_sources and you'll find that the standard is generally published sources, not internet pages. This edit fast, die young and leave no sources approach of yours add little, if anything, to the discussion.

Second, we are supposed to accept this line of reasoning based on assuming there's a "jump" in a line on a scan of a hand-written document that you alone see? Upon review it looks like there's a good deal of information that's missing. If the vertical line to the right and below Yazdigird III is supposed to point to him, then where is the heavy canted line that acually points to Yazdigird III supposed to go? You can't make one piece fit conveniently and not tie up the other loose ends.

Third, if we accept the chart, then you're hanging everything on an illegible segment between Senatar (sp?) and Babatón. The segment between Senatar and Bostanai skips thirty-one generations at least. Hardly rises to the level of proof even if one accepts that chart as authoritative.

Fourth, this chart, also purported to be by Gonzales, doesn't mention David at all. Why? It's clearly missing data, but so is your contender. Can you cite a published source that contains the entire document?

Fifth, this published source states that Bahá'u'lláh himself identifies Yazdigird III as his ancestor; something you skip with that little "jump" in the line.

It is to Yazdigird III, the last Sasanian monarch to occupy the throne of Iran, that the genealogy of Bahá'u'lláh can be traced. Ustad Javanmard, the principal of the Zoroastrian school of Yazd, presented seven queries to Bahá'u'lláh, the seventh of which concerned His ancestry. The Tablet known as Shir-Mard (Lion of a Man) - thus called because the recipient was so addressed by Bahá'u'lláh - was sent to him in reply. ... Answering his questions one by one, to the seventh query Bahá'u'lláh responded by referring him to the genealogy which Mirza Abu'l-Fadl-i-Gulpaygani had gathered and compiled. ...

Mirza Abu'l-Fadl, designated by the Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith as one of the nineteen 'Apostles of Bahá'u'lláh', was a man of rare erudition and a degree of scholarship so far unequalled amongst the followers of Bahá'u'lláh, whether in the East or in the West. In his reply to Aqa Khusraw Biman, he describes how his interest was aroused in the genealogy of Bahá'u'lláh, and how his researches led him to Yazdigird III, the last of the Sasanian monarchs of Iran.

(H.M. Balyuzi, Baha'u'llah - The King of Glory, p. 9)

(That's what citing your sources looks like, Jeff.)

Given that, the line of descent Cuñado and I both identified is the correct line of descent. And you still haven't answered how a Jewish monarchy passed down a matrilineal line when patrilineal ones was available.

Sixth, I accepted this so-called geneology for the sake of argument only. I do not think that a document that is: unpublished, lacks peer-review, hand-written, authored by an unknown person of unknown academic background, lacking any outside corroboration, and clearly having graphical flaw you, yourself, stipulate to, Jeff, rises to the level of "authoritative" by any measure, on any scale.

Seventh, a alternative readings, from a recognized authoritative Bahá'í figure, have been presented that clearly states a formulation that answers the prophetic question. Its simplicity contrasts with the convoluted one presented here bases upon a single suspect source. Dismissing as irrelevant a passage from Bahá'u'lláh's Son that addresses directly the "throne of David" because it's theologically incovenient demonstrates the dearth of honesty in the reasoning that's gone into this argument. By all means post this on a BUPC website. The more people who see this "scholarship", the better — but it doesn't belong on wikipedia.

As an aside, if you felt the need to gut the rest of the un-documented stuff on the BUPC you'd actually have my support. The lack of documentation on many of these issues is something I'm already on record as being troubled by.

MARussellPESE 05:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

~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:

"To Him Isaiah, the greatest of the Jewish prophets, had alluded as the "Glory of the Lord," the "Everlasting Father," the "Prince of Peace," the "Wonderful," the "Counsellor," the "Rod come forth out of the stem of Jesse" and the "Branch grown out of His roots," Who "shall be established upon the throne of David..." (Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 94)

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 ;)

"By the violent beating of my heart I knew that we were soon to see the Blessed face of the Prince of the House of David, the King of the whole world." (Lua Getsinger, cf. “Persia” by Asaac Adams, pp.478-484).

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

As Jeffmichaud has not answered the points raised on the academic authority of the genealogy, the published references that contradict asserting a patrilineal line to David that by-passes Yazdigird III for Bahá'u'lláh, nor clear Bahá'í doctrinal sources that state that the "Throne of David" is metaphorical in the Bahá'í view — I submit that the matter is closed and reference to this so-called line of descent be addressed as pure speculation in this article. MARussellPESE 23:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

This entire argument is being repeated on Talk:Davidic line by the same people. Please move to that page. Cuñado - Talk 02:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

~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.

"By the violent beating of my heart I knew that we were soon to see the Blessed face of the Prince of the House of David, the King of the whole world [refering to 'Abdu'l-Baha]." (Lua Getsinger, cf. “Persia” by Asaac Adams, pp.478-484).User:Jeffmichaud

BUPC Page

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".

I reverted the last edit again. Listing beliefs of Jensen, Jeff is taking away reference to King David, and replacing it with a belief that the rest of the Bahá'ís are wrong. The King David part is obvious, since it's a belief not shared by anybody else. The part about Jensen believing the others are deceived is just as necessary as saying everyone thinks he was deceived, or in other words not necessary. This is a Bahá'í divisions page, every group listed thinks the others are wrong. Cuñado - Talk 09:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

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 wasn't cutting and pasting, and your only purpose in editing the page is to promote Jensen and the BUPC, so don't fly the flag of good faith editing. Cuñado - Talk 18:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

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]

prophecies

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)

Pepe's quote

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

This has nothing to do with representing beliefs and censorship. You have changed the quote several times, and posting the date is not a reference. Is there a weblink? was it published in any book? Changing and re-editing a quoted statement is bad etiquette. Cuñado - Talk 08:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

~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

Regarding the beliefs, try not rambling on so much. Briefly stating his 3 most radical beliefs that differ from the Bahá'í Faith is relevant.

I deleted the quote entirely. A quick google search revealed that this wikipedia page is the only source for it. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for details about sources. Cuñado - Talk 09:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)