The House of Justice does not interpret

Jan 2012
719
China
#1
"From these statements it is made indubitably clear and evident that the Guardian of the Faith has been made the Interpreter of the Word and that the Universal House of Justice has been invested with the function of legislating on matters not expressly revealed in the teachings. The interpretation of the Guardian, functioning within his own sphere, is as authoritative and binding as the enactments of the International House of Justice, whose exclusive right and prerogative is to pronounce upon and deliver the final judgment on such laws and ordinances as Bahá'u'lláh has not expressly revealed. Neither can, nor will ever, infringe upon the sacred and prescribed domain of the other. Neither will seek to curtail the specific and undoubted authority with which both have been divinely invested."

(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 149)

My understanding of that is that nothing the House of Justice says, is an authoritative interpretation of the writings. I see that as part of the Covenant, which means that it's contrary to the Covenant to treat anything the House of Justice says as an authoritative interpretation of the writings.
 
Aug 2010
725
New Zealand mainly
#2
"From these statements it is made indubitably clear and evident that the Guardian of the Faith has been made the Interpreter of the Word and that the Universal House of Justice has been invested with the function of legislating on matters not expressly revealed in the teachings. The interpretation of the Guardian, functioning within his own sphere, is as authoritative and binding as the enactments of the International House of Justice, whose exclusive right and prerogative is to pronounce upon and deliver the final judgment on such laws and ordinances as Bahá'u'lláh has not expressly revealed. Neither can, nor will ever, infringe upon the sacred and prescribed domain of the other. Neither will seek to curtail the specific and undoubted authority with which both have been divinely invested."

(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 149)

My understanding of that is that nothing the House of Justice says, is an authoritative interpretation of the writings. I see that as part of the Covenant, which means that it's contrary to the Covenant to treat anything the House of Justice says as an authoritative interpretation of the writings.
"Contrary to the Covenent" is big words. Let's rather say that Bahais who treat the UHJ's writings as authoritative interpretations, or who treat Shoghi Effendi's words as Bahai law, are not using the Covenant as their reading framework. They are approaching these texts from some other standpoint, such as common sense, and that may well lead them to incorrect or partial conclusions. What would be "contrary to the Covenant" would be if their conclusions led them to cause disunity among the Bahais. That's a whole different kettle of fish
 
Jan 2012
719
China
#3
Sen, thank you very much. That was extremely reckless and thoughtless of me. I should have said that it appears to me to contradict and undermine the provisions of the Covenant, when people treat the writings of the House of Justice as authoritative interpretations.
 
Oct 2011
4,213
Quilimari,Chile
#4
To my knowledge when the UHJ gives people advise etc they use the Pure Word in doing so, so as people realize this instruction does not come from the UHJ alone but through the Authority of the Center's of the faith. Of course, I feel most Baha'is would understand this, but we are to look upon the Authority of the UHJ as stipulated in the covenant, and whatever laws they enact that are not covered by The Writings.

I found for myself that your comments may have been confusing for those who are not aware of the Covenant dear friend such as people who are not Baha'i, and many false assumptions could be made from this thread, without full explanation.

Just my view
Loving regards
Bill
 

Similar threads