Divine revelation

[robrecht]

Not the way I have defined 'Theological Reflection' in previous posts from my sources. 'Theological Reflection' remains a person process of reflection, meditation, and contemplation to find spiritual meaning within the context of Revelation. The process the UHJ goes through here is more on the lines of Consultation and the Independent Investigation of truth, and linguistic academics to flush out the best translation and understanding of the scripture.

Once again, "good theological reflection or interpretation." Are you seriously trying to claim that the people of the Universal House of Justice, in writing this piece, did not do any theological interpretation???

[shunyadragon]

Once again, "good theological reflection or interpretation." Are you seriously trying to claim that the people of the Universal House of Justice, in writing this piece, did not do any theological interpretation???

Seriously no. The members use theological reflection, but in this case I described the process in this situation. We define Theological Reflection differently.

[robrecht]

Seriously no. The members use theological reflection, but in this case I described the process in this situation. We define Theological Reflection differently.

But what about theological interpretation? Why do you keep ignoring that? Are you denying that this piece from the Universal House of Justice is a work of theological interpretation?

[shunyadragon]

But what about theological interpretation? Why do you keep ignoring that? Are you denying that this piece from the Universal House of Justice is a work of theological interpretation?

I am not ignoring it in this example. You are confusing a disagreement as to what is 'Theological Reflection, and not a problem of ignoring your question. This problem is not a matter of an 'interpretation' problem of the text. It is a matter of proper translation of the text.

I checked, the primary source is the Katab-I-Aqdas, and it simply states that the Administrative structure of the Baha'i Faith will be a hierarchy of elected Houses of Justices with a supreme body of nine the Universal House of Justice. The correction of the text concerning 'Rijal' referring to 'men' or 'men and women.' The consultation of further texts by Baha'u'llah, Abdul'baha, and Shoghi Effendi were studying and referred to make the determination that 'Rijal' was a gender neutral word.

Source: http://covenantstudy.org/questions/authority-of-universal-house-of-justice/

The men [rijal] of God’s House of Justice have been charged with the affairs of the people. They, in truth, are the Trustees of God among His servants and the daysprings of authority in His countries.

O people of God! That which traineth the world is Justice, for it is upheld by two pillars, reward and punishment. These two pillars are the sources of life to the world. Inasmuch as for each day there is a new problem and for every problem an expedient solution, such affairs should be referred to the Ministers of the House of Justice that they may act according to the needs and requirements of the time. They that, for the sake of God, arise to serve His Cause, are the recipients of divine inspiration from the unseen Kingdom. It is incumbent upon all to be obedient unto them. All matters of State should be referred to the House of Justice, but acts of worship must be observed according to that which God hath revealed in His Book.
Bahá’u'lláh, Tablets of Bahá’u'lláh Revealed after the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, pp. 26-27

It is incumbent upon the Trustees of the House of Justice to take counsel together regarding those things which have not outwardly been revealed in the Book, and to enforce that which is agreeable to them. God will verily inspire them with whatsoever He willeth, and He, verily, is the Provider, the Omniscient.
Bahá’u'lláh, Tablets of Bahá’u'lláh Revealed after the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 68

According to the fundamental laws which We have formerly revealed in the “Kitáb-i-Aqdas” and other Tablets, all affairs are committed to the care of just kings and presidents and of the Trustees of the House of Justice. Having pondered on that which We have enunciated, every man of equity and discernment will readily perceive, with his inner and outer eyes, the splendours of the day-star of justice which radiate therefrom.
Bahá’u'lláh, Tablets of Bahá’u'lláh Revealed after the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 93

© Copyright Original Source

[robrecht]

I am not ignoring it in this example. You are confusing a disagreement as to what is 'Theological Reflection, and not a problem of ignoring your question.

I don't know why you keep bringing this up. The fact that I and others do not accept a limitation of of theological reflection as only applying to one's own personal life (or perhaps to a small group of undefined size), has no relevance to my question.

This problem is not a matter of an 'interpretation' problem of the text. It is a matter of proper translation of the text.

Please read the statement of the Universal House of Justice. We are not merely speaking of the translation of a text but also of the cultural behavior and sexism of some leaders. Note also where and when women were first allowed to serve on some of these bodies--in the English speaking world, where there was less sexism. To merely speak of this as an issue of correct translation is to avoid the larger issues that one should not be afraid to discuss.

I checked, the primary source is the Katab-I-Aqdas, and it simply states that the Administrative structure of the Baha'i Faith will be a hierarchy of elected Houses of Justices with a supreme body of nine the Universal House of Justice. The correction of the text concerning 'Rijal' referring to 'men' or 'men and women.' The consultation of further texts by Baha'u'llah, Abdul'baha, and Shoghi Effendi were studying and referred to make the determination that 'Rijal' was a gender neutral word.

Source: http://covenantstudy.org/questions/authority-of-universal-house-of-justice/

The men [rijal] of God’s House of Justice have been charged with the affairs of the people. They, in truth, are the Trustees of God among His servants and the daysprings of authority in His countries.

O people of God! That which traineth the world is Justice, for it is upheld by two pillars, reward and punishment. These two pillars are the sources of life to the world. Inasmuch as for each day there is a new problem and for every problem an expedient solution, such affairs should be referred to the Ministers of the House of Justice that they may act according to the needs and requirements of the time. They that, for the sake of God, arise to serve His Cause, are the recipients of divine inspiration from the unseen Kingdom. It is incumbent upon all to be obedient unto them. All matters of State should be referred to the House of Justice, but acts of worship must be observed according to that which God hath revealed in His Book.
Bahá’u'lláh, Tablets of Bahá’u'lláh Revealed after the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, pp. 26-27

It is incumbent upon the Trustees of the House of Justice to take counsel together regarding those things which have not outwardly been revealed in the Book, and to enforce that which is agreeable to them. God will verily inspire them with whatsoever He willeth, and He, verily, is the Provider, the Omniscient.
Bahá’u'lláh, Tablets of Bahá’u'lláh Revealed after the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 68

According to the fundamental laws which We have formerly revealed in the “Kitáb-i-Aqdas” and other Tablets, all affairs are committed to the care of just kings and presidents and of the Trustees of the House of Justice. Having pondered on that which We have enunciated, every man of equity and discernment will readily perceive, with his inner and outer eyes, the splendours of the day-star of justice which radiate therefrom.
Bahá’u'lláh, Tablets of Bahá’u'lláh Revealed after the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 93

© Copyright Original Source

So, how do you account for the differing interpretations/translations and the divergent practice on the part of some Baha'i leaders? Please specifically address the interpretation/translation discussed by the Universal House of Justice.

[shunyadragon]

I don't know why you keep bringing this up. The fact that I and others do not accept a limitation of of theological reflection as only applying to one's own personal life (or perhaps to a small group of undefined size), has no relevance to my question.

It is very relevant to your question, because we disagree, and I have answered the question to the best of my ability.

You have failed to cite these mythical others that agree with your interpretation of Theological Reflection.

Please read the statement of the Universal House of Justice. We are not merely speaking of the translation of a text but also of the cultural behavior and sexism of some leaders. Note also where and when women were first allowed to serve on some of these bodies--in the English speaking world, where there was less sexism. To merely speak of this as an issue of correct translation is to avoid the larger issues that one should not be afraid to discuss.

So, how do you account for the differing interpretations/translations and the divergent practice on the part of some Baha'i leaders? Please specifically address the interpretation/translation discussed by the Universal House of Justice.

The references cited are clear and concise, and they are now accepted by the Baha'is of the world. It was a correction of a translation problem, and the issue is resolved. Individual human problems of 'Sexism' and individual interpretations represent human problems that as long as humans are humans, the human problems will always remain an issue

[robrecht]

It is very relevant to your question, because we disagree, and I have answered the question to the best of my ability.

How is it relevant? Unless you believe that your definition of theological reflection also applies to 'theological interpretation'? Is that the case?

You have failed to cite these mythical others that agree with your interpretation of Theological Reflection.

I have not failed to cite these theologians. I have not tried to cite them because I do not see how this has any relevance. If you want to define 'theological interpretation' with the same limitations that you want to apply to 'theological reflection', let me know.

The references cited are clear and concise, and they are now accepted by the Baha'is of the world. It was a correction of a translation problem, and the issue is resolved. Individual human problems of 'Sexism' and individual interpretations represent human problems that as long as humans are humans, the human problems will always remain an issue

If this is simply a matter of a mistranslation of an Arabic/Farsi word, why is it that it was first understood correctly by people in America?

[shunyadragon]

How is it relevant? Unless you believe that your definition of theological reflection also applies to 'theological interpretation'? Is that the case?

Only at the personal level.

I have not failed to cite these theologians. I have not tried to cite them because I do not see how this has any relevance. If you want to define 'theological interpretation' with the same limitations that you want to apply to 'theological reflection', let me know.

You have not supplied an outside source defining 'Theological Reflection' as you believe it is used. All you did was respond with a definition of 'Theological' and one for 'Reflections.' I responded in detail why the words do not define a phrase. Still waiting for a definition provided by another source.

If this is simply a matter of a mistranslation of an Arabic/Farsi word, why is it that it was first understood correctly by people in America?

Yes, it is a mistranslation, but it is not an issue who discovered the problem. Can you give a source as to who specifically discovered the mistranslation? Actually, there are about ~50% or more of the writings of Baha'u'llah remain untranslated in the archives at the World Center on Mount Carmel and they are currently being translated by staff there. I have seen a number of editions of Baha'u'llah's works retranslated, corrected and republished over the years including at least three editions of the Katab-I-aqdas.

Actually most Baha'i scholars fluent in Arabic and Persian from Iran and other Arabic countries now reside in the USA or Haifa Isreal, because of the attempts to exterminate Baha'is from Iran and the Arabic world. United States universities remain the greatest source of academics in this field, next are France, Great Britain and Germany.

[robrecht]

Only at the personal level.

So, for you personally, 'theological reflection' is the same thing as 'theological interpretation'--is that what you are saying? And, if that is the case, you would like to apply for yourself the same limitations to 'theological interpretation' that you glean from the definition of 'theological reflection' that you provided--is that correct? In other words, you think that theological interpretation/reflection should only be applied to the personal experiences of an individual or small group and should not be applied to matters of doctrine. Is that correct?

You have not supplied an outside source defining 'Theological Reflection' as you believe it is used.

Correct. I do not understand why this has any relevance to my questions of you. If I understand the above correctly, it is relevant because you are claiming that you cannot interpret doctrine theologically. Is that correct?

All you did was respond with a definition of 'Theological' and one for 'Reflections.' I responded in detail why the words do not define a phrase. Still waiting for a definition provided by another source.

Huh? I've told you how I use the phrase--the phrase consists of two words and these two words are used exactly as they are defined. I do not use the phrase with any secret meaning that is not apparent to anyone who understands what each of the words mean.

Yes, it is a mistranslation, but it is not an issue who discovered the problem. Can you give a source as to who specifically discovered the mistranslation? Actually, there are about ~50% or more of the writings of Baha'u'llah remain untranslated in the archives at the World Center on Mount Carmel and they are currently being translated by staff there. I have seen a number of editions of Baha'u'llah's works retranslated, corrected and republished over the years including at least three editions of the Katab-I-aqdas.

You are the one claiming it is merely a matter of a mistranslation--you should know who discovered the mistranslation. I would rather you discuss the larger issues involved, but you seem reluctant to do this.

[shunyadragon]

So, for you personally, 'theological reflection' is the same thing as 'theological interpretation'--is that what you are saying?

No.

And, if that is the case, you would like to apply for yourself the same limitations to 'theological interpretation' that you glean from the definition of 'theological reflection' that you provided--is that correct? In other words, you think that theological interpretation/reflection should only be applied to the personal experiences of an individual or small group and should not be applied to matters of doctrine. Is that correct?

I will conditionally agree, but my dialogue with you is like finding the rocks in the quicksand. The matters of Revelation, Doctrine and Dogma in Theological Reflection is contemplation, reflection meditation and prayer to give one purpose, understanding, and inward meaning of the nature of belief in their lives at the personal level.

Correct. I do not understand why this has any relevance to my questions of you. If I understand the above correctly, it is relevant because you are claiming that you cannot interpret doctrine theologically. Is that correct?

Not correct and confusing. I did not say one cannot interpret doctrine (theologically?). I have said that Theological Reflection in and of itself is not equivalent to the interpretation beyond the personal level.

Huh? I've told you how I use the phrase--the phrase consists of two words and these two words are used exactly as they are defined. I do not use the phrase with any secret meaning that is not apparent to anyone who understands what each of the words mean.

I did say it was a secret meaning. It appears to be your own personal meaning and interpretation of the 'phrase' that makes communication difficult. You have failed to present a second source that defines the phrase the way you do. It is pretty standard English that the definition of individual words is not necessarily equivalent to the phrase.

You are the one claiming it is merely a matter of a mistranslation--you should know who discovered the mistranslation. I would rather you discuss the larger issues involved, but you seem reluctant to do this.

No, I do not know, because I have no reference that this is the case. You are the one that claims the error was discovered in the USA. That is possible, but I find no reference that that is the case. When the UHJ makes this sort of communication the work on translation and editing are usually done at the archives in Haifa, Israel on Mount Carmel. As I said previously the writings have undergone editing and corrections over the years, and this most often takes place in the Archives in Haifa Israel, and is an ongoing process. I have been to Haifa Israel, and met some the staff at the archives.

[robrecht]

No.

Then explain what you mean. I asked: "How is it relevant? Unless you believe that your definition of theological reflection also applies to 'theological interpretation'? Is that the case?" You responded, "Only at the personal level." What do you mean by 'your definition of theological reflection also applies to theological interpretation only at the personal level'?

I will conditionally agree, but my dialogue with you is like finding the rocks in the quicksand. The matters of Revelation, Doctrine and Dogma in Theological Reflection is contemplation, reflection meditation and prayer to give one purpose, understanding, and inward meaning of the nature of belief in their lives at the personal level.

It need not be like quicksand.

Not correct and confusing.

Then, again, please explain what you mean, by 'your definition of theological reflection also applies to theological interpretation only at the personal level'?

I did not say one cannot interpret doctrine (theologically?). I have said that Theological Reflection in and of itself is not equivalent to the interpretation beyond the personal level.

And this is relevant to our conversation how exactly? Do you imagine that I have said theological reflection is only equivalent to interpretation beyond the personal level?

I did say it was a secret meaning. It appears to be your own personal meaning and interpretation of the 'phrase' that makes communication difficult.

Not is is not my own personal meaning. But, even if it were, I have asked you to use your own words to describe the phenomena I have pointed to. Instead of trying to communicate about these phenomena with your own words, you prefer to critque my words, and try to claim that I am using my words in some sort of unusual way. So don't use my words. Use your own words.

You have failed to present a second source that defines the phrase the way you do. It is pretty standard English that the definition of individual words is not necessarily equivalent to the phrase.

Not necessarily, but in this case I have told you explicitly many times that my use of these two words is in no way unusual.

But since you refuse to accept my repeated statement that my use of these two words are not different than how they are commonly defined, just for fun, I googled ‘theological reflection’ for you. The first hit was the definition you provided. The other definitions I have cited below are all from the second Google hit:

http://divinity.vanderbilt.edu/acade...reflection.php

As expected, they demonstrate a variety and range of ways of understanding this phrase. While some might want to apply certain limitations, not necessarily all of your limitations, others use the phrase the same as I do. The first is your definition:

What Is Theological Reflection?
A Guide from the Rev. Dr. Richard Dickey, 6/2006
http://www.ants.edu/pdf/Theological_...n_R_Dickey.pdf

"... Current understandings of theological reflection are characterized by their focus on life experiences rather than on a doctrine, belief or practice. ..."

So, by this 'defintion', perhaps my usage is old fashioned in his opinion. I can live with that. I do not know Reverend Dickey and cannot account for his motives in why he might not want me or others to reflect theologically upon doctrines, beliefs, or practice. Perhaps he does not want to open up a can of worms. I did know Avery Cardinal Dulles, and he was also reluctant to have lay people reflecting upon doctrine, but despite his doctrinal conservatism, he certainly did encourage theological reflection upon much more than mere personal life experience and he was quite willing to speak of ‘continuing revelation’:

Avery Cardinal Dulles:
The subject matter on which theological reflection focuses is not the doctrinal themes of traditional theology (like, Trinity, Christology, church and sacraments), but great human problems of the day as, for instance, war, oppression, poverty, pollution, and the breakdown of human community on various levels. The assumption here is that Revelation is to be found not so much in clear directives from the past as in the dimension of ultimacy within our own experience. God's revelation to our predecessors afford paradigms or guidelines for the present; they serve to suggest and open up the depth-dimensions in the experience of the believer today. In this sense, one may speak of 'continuing revelation'.

Others speak of theological reflection without prohibiting the subject matter:

Roberta Bondi:
For me, theological reflection is a three-way conversation among our ancestors in the church, my everyday experience and God. The conversation calls me to bring the whole of who I am - intellect and emotion, memory and hope, action and contemplation, wounds and prayer - in order that I may live out our common calling to love God and neighbor.

Henri Nouwen:
Few ministers and priests think theologically. Most of them have been educated in a climate in which the behavioral sciences, such as psychology and sociology, so dominated the educational milieu that little true theology was being learned. Most Christian leaders today raise psychological and sociological questions even though they frame them in scriptural terms. Real theological thinking ... is hard to find in the practice of ministry. Without solid theological reflection, future leaders will be little more than pseudo-psychologists, pseudo-sociologists, pseudo-social workers. They will think of themselves as enablers, facilitators, role models, father or mother figures, big brothers or big sisters, and so on, and thus join the countless men and women who make a living by trying to help their fellow human beings to cope with the stresses and strains of everyday living. But that has little to do with Christian leadership because the Christian leader thinks, speaks and acts in the name of Jesus, who came to free humanity from the power of death and open the way to eternal life. To be such a leader it is essential to be able to discern from moment to moment how God acts in human history and how the personal, communal, national and international events that occur during our lives can make us more and more sensitive to the ways in which we are led to the cross and through the cross to the resurrection...

James D. Whitehead and Evelyn Eaton Whitehead:
In every age the community of faith must discover the shape of its ministry. We must discern how we are to be faithful to the gospel and effective in our mission: to celebrate God's saving presence and to contribute, by word and action and sacrament, to the fullness of this presence - the coming of the Kingdom. Theological reflection is an essential tool in this discernment of contemporary ministry. … Theological reflection in ministry involves three sources of religiously relevant information – Christian Tradition, the experience of the community of faith, and the resources of the culture.

Howard W. Stone and James O. Duke:
Serious thinking about the meaning of Christian faith can and does take place anywhere, It goes on while conversing, worshiping, weathering a life crisis, keeping up with the latest news, working, taking some time out for recreation. Wherever and whenever it occurs, theological reflection is not only a personal but also an interactive, dialogical and community-related process. The voices of others are heard. Some of these voices, like those of the biblical writers, come from texts of centuries past. Others are those of our contemporaries. Still others are our own. These voices offer us food for thought to be heeded or debated or improved upon or set aside as unhelpful. To engage in theological reflection is to join an ongoing conversation with others that began long before we ever came along and will continue long after we have passed away.

Patricia O'Connell Killen and John de Beer:
Theological reflection is the discipline of exploring individual and corporate experience in conversation with the wisdom of a religious heritage. The conversation is a genuine dialogue that seeks to hear from our own beliefs, actions, and perspectives, as well as those of the tradition. It respects the integrity of both. Theological reflection therefore may confirm, challenge, clarify, and expand how we understand our own experience and how we understand the religious tradition. The outcome is new truth and meaning for living.

Contrary to your misunderstanding of my view of theological reflection, I do not deny the personal experiential dimension nor do I say that its purpose is new revelation, but I do note in multiple examples in the history of the Christian churches where it has contributed to the development or definition of dogmas by popes and councils as well as the denial of previously held doctrines in large, not merely small, groups or denominations. You may not want to call these examples ‘theological reflection’, which is fine with me, I am not trying to insist upon any particular definition, or my own phrasing, but you should at least be able to tell me what words you would use to describe these concrete phenomenon, something which you have up until now refused to do. You may wish to deny that continuing revelation or doctrinal development, or whatever you want to call it, is allowed in the Baha’i tradition for your spiritual truths or spiritual laws, and that’s fine too, as far as I’m concerned, but it would be pretty foolish for you to deny the facts of history in the Christian church, in which doctrinal understanding has indeed evolved, new dogmas have been defined, older doctrines have been abandoned by some. It is just the way it is. Whether you call it ‘theological reflection’ or ‘theological interpretation’ or ‘continuing revelation’ or something else entirely is irrelevant to me.

Now are you finally ready to deal with some of the subtleties of the text from the Universal House of Justice?

No, I do not know, because I have no reference that this is the case. You are the one that claims the error was discovered in the USA. That is possible, but I find no reference that that is the case. When the UHJ makes this sort of communication the work on translation and editing are usually done at the archives in Haifa, Israel on Mount Carmel. As I said previously the writings have undergone editing and corrections over the years, and this most often takes place in the Archives in Haifa Israel, and is an ongoing process. I have been to Haifa Israel, and met some the staff at the archives.

That was not my claim. Maybe you did not read the authoritative statement of the Universal House of Justice very carefully (let alone critically). I have claimed nothing beyond what they themselves say, 'though a critical reading of their text may give one pause. They say that 'women were first put on local assemblies in the West, where sexism was not so deeply rooted as in the East', but they also point to 'much confusion surrounding this issue, stemming from prejudice and from the English/Arabic language barrier', and they also advance another explanation, namely that a relatively early statement of 'Abdu'l-Baha 'was not a statement for all time but for that specific time.'

I understand that you may not want to read an authoritative statement of the Universal House of Justice critically, but I would like you to at least try to account for your own sense of Revelation in this thread. If you do not want to do that, that's fine too, but then you can hardly expect me to revise my impression.

[robrecht]

Contradictory or Continual Revelation, Development of Doctrine, or a Difference of Theological Opinion?

Source: Compiled by the Research Department of the Universal House of Justice, Bahá’í World Centre, January 1986
Page 13

27: As regards your question concerning the membership of the Universal House…

As regards your question concerning the membership of the Universal House of Justice: there is a Tablet from ‘Abdul-Bahá in which He definitely states that the membership of the Universal House is confined to men, and that the wisdom of it will be fully revealed and appreciated in the future. In the local as well as the national Houses of Justice, however, women have the full right of membership. It is, therefore, only to the International (sic) House that they cannot be elected. The Bahá’ís should accept this statement of the Master in a spirit of deep faith, confident that there is a divine guidance and wisdom behind it which will be gradually unfolded to the eyes of the world.

(28 July 1936 to an individual believer)

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/c/CW...=highlight#gr1

The appointed body of the Universal House of Justice in its first stage, once and for all, herby resolves that:

Based upon the Explicit Holy Text and the clear and manifest proofs and evidences contained within, and in accordance with, the revealed statements of Baha'u'llah, 'Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi, the Universal House of Justice shall be comprised of both men and women.

And furthermore, that:
The membership of both men and women on the Universal House of Justice is constituted within the Baha'i Administrative Order, that is, the membership of both men and women on the Universal House of Justice forms an irremovable part of the constitution of the Universal House of Justice in all its stages.

And therefore, that:
In conformity with, and in enforcement of, the Explicit Holy Text, if women are not elected to the Universal House of Justice than that election shall be declared invalid.

[Approved this eighteenth day of Mulk in the year one hundred and fifty-two of the Baha'i Era (February 24, 1996)]

http://uhj.net/women-on-uhj.html

Baha'is to elect Universal House of Justice
22 April 2008

Any male age 21 and over is eligible for election to the Universal House of Justice. Both women and men serve on all other Bahá’í institutions—international, continental, national and local.

http://news.bahai.org/story/620

Membership of the Universal House of Justice

It is notable that out of all Bahá'í institutions, whether elective or appointive, the Universal House of Justice is the sole instance where the membership is restricted to men. Bahá'u'lláh gave no reason for this provision of the Sacred Text. ...

Copyright 2014, Bahá'í International Community

http://info.bahai.org/article-1-0-0-3.html

[shunyadragon]

Contradictory or Continual Revelation, Development of Doctrine, or a Difference of Theological Opinion?

Source: Compiled by the Research Department of the Universal House of Justice, Bahá’í World Centre, January 1986
Page 13

27: As regards your question concerning the membership of the Universal House…

As regards your question concerning the membership of the Universal House of Justice: there is a Tablet from ‘Abdul-Bahá in which He definitely states that the membership of the Universal House is confined to men, and that the wisdom of it will be fully revealed and appreciated in the future. In the local as well as the national Houses of Justice, however, women have the full right of membership. It is, therefore, only to the International (sic) House that they cannot be elected. The Bahá’ís should accept this statement of the Master in a spirit of deep faith, confident that there is a divine guidance and wisdom behind it which will be gradually unfolded to the eyes of the world.

(28 July 1936 to an individual believer)

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/c/CW...=highlight#gr1

The appointed body of the Universal House of Justice in its first stage, once and for all, herby resolves that:

Based upon the Explicit Holy Text and the clear and manifest proofs and evidences contained within, and in accordance with, the revealed statements of Baha'u'llah, 'Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi, the Universal House of Justice shall be comprised of both men and women.

And furthermore, that:
The membership of both men and women on the Universal House of Justice is constituted within the Baha'i Administrative Order, that is, the membership of both men and women on the Universal House of Justice forms an irremovable part of the constitution of the Universal House of Justice in all its stages.

And therefore, that:
In conformity with, and in enforcement of, the Explicit Holy Text, if women are not elected to the Universal House of Justice than that election shall be declared invalid.

[Approved this eighteenth day of Mulk in the year one hundred and fifty-two of the Baha'i Era (February 24, 1996)]

http://uhj.net/women-on-uhj.html

Baha'is to elect Universal House of Justice
22 April 2008

Any male age 21 and over is eligible for election to the Universal House of Justice. Both women and men serve on all other Bahá’í institutions—international, continental, national and local.

http://news.bahai.org/story/620

Membership of the Universal House of Justice

It is notable that out of all Bahá'í institutions, whether elective or appointive, the Universal House of Justice is the sole instance where the membership is restricted to men. Bahá'u'lláh gave no reason for this provision of the Sacred Text. ...

Copyright 2014, Bahá'í International Community

http://info.bahai.org/article-1-0-0-3.html

OK the present decision of the UHJ is that only men may be elected to the UHJ

[robrecht]

OK the present decision of the UHJ is that only men may be elected to the UHJ

Did they change their mind? Is there more than one Universal House of Justice?

[shunyadragon]

Did they change their mind? Is there more than one Universal House of Justice?

I don't know, It is subject to further investigation on my part. I guess I was correct when the discussion started.