Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 18, 2001, Page 104
recognizes Baha‘u‘llah, and his understanding of the teachings deepens, he
will gradually see how his own ideals are but facets in the all-embracing
Purpose of God, and will be willing to endure all manner of suffering and
frustration for the sake of the fulfillment of that divine Purpose. If, however,
the believer allows his own ideals and purposes to retain their pre-eminence
in his thinking, and he finds he cannot pursue them as he wishes, it may
result in his leaving the Faith to pursue them in other ways. This is what
would seem to have happened to the friends you speak of.
This Baha‘i is then scolded for continuing to pursue his ideals within the Baha‘i Faith, but
independently of the institutional structure.43
A number of young intellectuals found themselves together in the Los Angeles area during
the mid-70s. They became a distinct subgroup there in the nation‘s largest Baha‘i
community, separated both by the generation gap from the Faith‘s leadership, and from the
rest of the community by their training and critical discourse. They began a series of study
classes, where no topic was to be off-limits and the discussion would be rational and
intellectual. The LA Study Class also began circulating to those who were interested in
these discussions but unable to attend a small, local newsletter, consisting mostly of
discussions of aspects of Baha‘i history and scripture. While the LA study class notes were
available by subscription only, they inevitably fell into the hands of those who were
disturbed by their content, and turned them in to Baha‘i authorities. In April 1979, the
Universal House of Justice sent the American National Spiritual Assembly a letter expressing
concerns that the study class newsletter ―displayed an ignorance of the basic teachings of
the Faith,‖ was in ―poor taste,‖ and contained comments which could cause ―severe tests to
a believer.‖ NSA members were sent to talk to the study class participants, complaining
about the content while contradictorily asserting that it was not the Assembly‘s intent to
censor the discussions. For example, it was alleged that the newsletter contained
―destructive criticism‖ and displayed ―partisanship.‖ These charges puzzled class members,
who were told that these objectionable aspects of their publication would become ―clear
upon reflection.‖ This sort of vague disapproval and the expectation that Baha‘is should
instinctively know where the lines are and exercise self-censorship would become standard
for the Baha‘i administration in dealing with public discourse. Eventually, the NSA demanded
that the newsletter be subject to review. While there were plans to appeal, the class
gradually disbanded and the matter dropped.44
In 1985, a few of the remnants of the study class met to launch a more substantial
quarterly magazine, called dialogue, which was aimed at Baha‘is with social concerns and
intellectual interests. There was tension between the editors and the National Spiritual
Assembly almost from the outset, including objections over plans to use the subtitle, ―A
Baha‘i Journal of Commentary and Opinion,‖ since the use of the word ―Baha‘i‖ was thought
to imply that the magazine reflected official views. The prepublication review requirement
caused serious difficulties in the publication schedule, and a dozen articles were censored
outright, with several others being allowed to appear only after revisions had been made. In
May 1987 the editors were summoned to meet with the National Spiritual Assembly and
were accused of ―undermining the authority of the NSA.‖ Even more sympathetic members
said the ―tone‖ of the magazine ―was not right.‖ However, dialogue rapidly grew popular,
becoming the largest paid subscription Baha‘i periodical in North America. Since it had a
somewhat liberal bent, this indicates that a fair number of Baha‘is are open to this
perspective.45 It is important to note, that not all members of the NSA or UHJ supported
the crackdown on the magazine, and the editors have reported receiving private
expressions of sympathy from this out-voted minority.46
The final crisis was precipitated by the submission of the article A Modest Proposal that
outlined reform proposals for the ―revitalization of the American Baha‘i community.‖ Most of
recognizes Baha‘u‘llah, and his understanding of the teachings deepens, he
will gradually see how his own ideals are but facets in the all-embracing
Purpose of God, and will be willing to endure all manner of suffering and
frustration for the sake of the fulfillment of that divine Purpose. If, however,
the believer allows his own ideals and purposes to retain their pre-eminence
in his thinking, and he finds he cannot pursue them as he wishes, it may
result in his leaving the Faith to pursue them in other ways. This is what
would seem to have happened to the friends you speak of.
This Baha‘i is then scolded for continuing to pursue his ideals within the Baha‘i Faith, but
independently of the institutional structure.43
A number of young intellectuals found themselves together in the Los Angeles area during
the mid-70s. They became a distinct subgroup there in the nation‘s largest Baha‘i
community, separated both by the generation gap from the Faith‘s leadership, and from the
rest of the community by their training and critical discourse. They began a series of study
classes, where no topic was to be off-limits and the discussion would be rational and
intellectual. The LA Study Class also began circulating to those who were interested in
these discussions but unable to attend a small, local newsletter, consisting mostly of
discussions of aspects of Baha‘i history and scripture. While the LA study class notes were
available by subscription only, they inevitably fell into the hands of those who were
disturbed by their content, and turned them in to Baha‘i authorities. In April 1979, the
Universal House of Justice sent the American National Spiritual Assembly a letter expressing
concerns that the study class newsletter ―displayed an ignorance of the basic teachings of
the Faith,‖ was in ―poor taste,‖ and contained comments which could cause ―severe tests to
a believer.‖ NSA members were sent to talk to the study class participants, complaining
about the content while contradictorily asserting that it was not the Assembly‘s intent to
censor the discussions. For example, it was alleged that the newsletter contained
―destructive criticism‖ and displayed ―partisanship.‖ These charges puzzled class members,
who were told that these objectionable aspects of their publication would become ―clear
upon reflection.‖ This sort of vague disapproval and the expectation that Baha‘is should
instinctively know where the lines are and exercise self-censorship would become standard
for the Baha‘i administration in dealing with public discourse. Eventually, the NSA demanded
that the newsletter be subject to review. While there were plans to appeal, the class
gradually disbanded and the matter dropped.44
In 1985, a few of the remnants of the study class met to launch a more substantial
quarterly magazine, called dialogue, which was aimed at Baha‘is with social concerns and
intellectual interests. There was tension between the editors and the National Spiritual
Assembly almost from the outset, including objections over plans to use the subtitle, ―A
Baha‘i Journal of Commentary and Opinion,‖ since the use of the word ―Baha‘i‖ was thought
to imply that the magazine reflected official views. The prepublication review requirement
caused serious difficulties in the publication schedule, and a dozen articles were censored
outright, with several others being allowed to appear only after revisions had been made. In
May 1987 the editors were summoned to meet with the National Spiritual Assembly and
were accused of ―undermining the authority of the NSA.‖ Even more sympathetic members
said the ―tone‖ of the magazine ―was not right.‖ However, dialogue rapidly grew popular,
becoming the largest paid subscription Baha‘i periodical in North America. Since it had a
somewhat liberal bent, this indicates that a fair number of Baha‘is are open to this
perspective.45 It is important to note, that not all members of the NSA or UHJ supported
the crackdown on the magazine, and the editors have reported receiving private
expressions of sympathy from this out-voted minority.46
The final crisis was precipitated by the submission of the article A Modest Proposal that
outlined reform proposals for the ―revitalization of the American Baha‘i community.‖ Most of
