Talk:Immigration

That's Dr. Esslemont writing about the White Australia policy. He goes on to say :

"We are delighted to hear of the growth of the Baha'i Group in Melbourne. In the growth of the Baha'i movement, it seems to me, lies the hope of the world for the solution of all the problems that now vex and trouble it. ... From your name I presume that either you or your parents hail from the same side of the Tweed as myself. My native town is Aberdeen. The name of Norman MacLeod was a highly honoured one in Scotland in my childhood's days and is still. Are you a near relative of the great Presbyterian Divine we used to hear so much about?" (Messages to the Antipodes)

Shoghi Effendi disliked the term "Bahai movement." The "we" is not the royal we of the Guardian, it is we, the staff at the Bahai World Centre.

Thanks for your contribution.

As far as the term "Baha'i movement", even if Shoghi Effendi wanted to get away from that term being used (or used too frequently), the fact that his secretaries used that term elsewhere ought to be indication that the usage is not an indicator of authorship:

"Shoghi Effendi believes that for the present the Movement, whether in the East or the West, should be dissociated entirely from politics. This was the explicit injunction of `Abdu'l-Bahá... Eventually, however, as you have rightly conceived it, the Movement will, as soon as it is fully developed and recognized, embrace both religious and political issues. In fact Bahá'u'lláh clearly states that affairs of state as well as religious questions are to be referred to the House of Justice into which the Assemblies of the Bahá'ís will eventually evolve." (30 November 1930, cited in https://bahai-library.com/uhj_theocracy )

Perhaps this is an example of the secretaries' who are described as using "their own terms and not his exact words in conveying his messages".

As far as authorship, according to https://bahai-library.com/uhj_authenticity_some_texts#memorandum :

"The following statement, referred to by Mr. ... and published in "Principles of Bahá'í Administration" without a date, was added by Shoghi Effendi to a letter written on his behalf to an individual on 7 December 1930. He wrote:

"I wish to add and say that whatever letters are sent in my behalf from Haifa are all read and approved by me before mailing.1 There is no exception whatever to this rule.

"This clear statement of Shoghi Effendi was written in response to the following question:

"Can you make a statement which would establish the authenticity of your letters written by Ruhi or Soheil with your P.C. [sic] attached. There are still some people who continue to feel that these letters are not authorized by you and only express the personal opinions of the above writers.

Notice how the statement on behalf of Shoghi Effendi indicating in strong terms that the letters sent "from Haifa" are all approved by him is in reply to a question about whether some letters being sent out from Haifa with the secretaries' names only convey the secretaries' personal opinions--he rejects that this is the case.

The fact that the secretaries sometimes added their own purely personal greetings (such as Ahmad Sohrab used to do at the time of 'Abdu'l-Baha as well) does not mean that the rest of the contents are personal opinions. And no doubt any believers would be well aware that Shoghi Effendi would be very upset if people were expressing their personal opinions about social issues, no less in a tone which makes categorical assertions such as "finds no justification in the Bahá'í Teachings".

WikiSysop (talk) 02:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I was informed that the letter in question (which I am keeping with a note, as it nevertheless seems it could be authentic) did not have an original found, and was thus removed in the latest version (available as a PDF or ePub now for free at https://bahaibooks.com.au/products/messages-to-the-antipodes-au-softcover ).

Also another letter (at https://bahai-library.com/shoghieffendi_messages_antipodes.html&chapter=1#30%20December%201925 ) which mentioned Prohibition and the Scouting movement was removed. Although in the case of this letter, I am unaware of an explicit reason for its removal, it does seem you might have been correct that at this stage at least, secretaries were in fact writing personal letters, as this letter also, besides broaching a semi-political subject as with the White Australia letter, which I cannot otherwise think of having been done by Shoghi Effendi, had some personal mentions interspersed in it.

I think one could reconcile the statement I cited earlier in one of a few ways:

These actually are authentic letters from on behalf of Shoghi Effendi but the originals of these two were just not found (or, possibly, not deemed timely for publication)
Shoghi Effendi's words were about letters marked as being on his behalf, but not about other letters (e.g., letters where secretaries were expressing an opinion, as could more easily, though clearly not always (since letters on behalf might conceivably have also allowed personal comments if marked as such), lead believers to believe it was not from Shoghi Effendi).
Shoghi Effendi began enforcing this policy later (the letters that were removed were both earlier--from 1925).

What I am still unclear about, however. Still, the guidance doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me (!), but that doesn't mean it is authentic (nor that I am necessarily correct about the validity of the message). WikiSysop (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2021 (PDT)