User talk:Ernobe

Welcome to the site, and thanks for your helpful contribution on the Qur'an page! WikiSysop (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Lippitt comment

Thanks for your contributions here! Great to have them...

For the addition to Template:Organizing the Writings, however, I'd prefer we add anything that is not from the Writings (not part of the O, per Lippitt's scheme!) to the likes of Bahaipedia (though we can add a cross-site link like on the bottom of Star of the West#Correlated to updated translations so people are more likely to find it from Bahai9). On very rare occasions I've made an exception to this, but those exceptions should either be closely derived from the text itself or be otherwise likely to lead to confusion (e.g., "biochemical homeopathy" where "homeopathy" has a very different connotation in modern discourse).

WikiSysop (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2023 (PDT)

I'm thinking of including it in the list of goals at Bahai9:Bahai9 wiki, the goal being to expand the classification system of the topics section of the Main Page on the basis of the Lippitt/Hoagg scheme.

Ernobe (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2023 (PDT)

If it fits with the approach of those main subject entries being fields of study, then cool. If it is something different, please consider taking an approach like adding something like Subject#Dewey classification. We can have multiple systems co-exist, but I'd like for the one on the main page to be strictly fields of study (e.g., "Language" is not a field of study but it is used as a top-level classification in Dewey--for the main system, it should instead be "Linguistics" so we have a more easily agreed-upon classification). WikiSysop (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2023 (PDT)

It would be fine, btw, for you to have an introductory comment about her system on the main page for her classification scheme (or as a subheading of Subject). WikiSysop (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2023 (PDT)

Teaching page

Hi there... Just an FYI on why I reverted the teaching page-related changes. That page is really just for when Bahá'ís use the word "teaching" as in "Teaching the Faith". If we used the word "Teachings", then it would be suitable to use that page for what is on the Social Teachings page, but I used the word "Social" to distinguish, as 'Abdu'l-Bahá does, from the "moral" teachings. Brettz9 (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2025 (EST)

FWIW you might as well split part of the Teaching page into a Moral teachings page. They look kind of the same to me. Ernobe (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2025 (EST)

The Teaching page is only about teaching others the Faith; do you mean split part of the Social Teachings page? I think those are social teachings already; moral teachings would be a good page to have—but it'd be things like not gossiping, showing kindness, etc.--things I think that are always more one-on-one and the same in each age, rather than societal questions. Could link to virtues as one type of moral teaching. Brettz9 (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2025 (EST)

I think the social and moral teachings, as you've defined them, are what is known as the indirect method of teaching, which naturally tends to split things in two, the natural as opposed to the spiritual. Teachings, without qualification, would be the direct method. It makes sense therefore, as you suggest, to have separate pages for them, as even the indirect teachings require explanation. Ernobe (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2025 (EST)

I think it would be good to also have a separate page for "indirect vs. direct method of teaching" (and link to it in the "See also" of the "Teaching" page and possibly also the "Social teachings" page) wherein was discussed the fact that there are indeed these two methods of teaching. While the sharing of the social teachings (without reference to Bahá'u'lláh) is a form of indirect teaching, and the practice of the moral teachings alone might be seen as a form of indirect teaching, I think we have to distinguish between that sharing and practice of teachings and the actual moral and social teachings themselves.

So, for example, sharing the idea of world government with others without mentioning Bahá'u'lláh is an instance of indirect teaching, but the principle of "world government" itself is a separate idea worthy of its own page as is the notion of there being a listing of social teachings like "world government". And we also need a page to cover what direct vs. indirect teaching means (though I don't think we need a list of direct or indirect teaching, because that would make the most sense as a list of activities, and there are too many kinds of possible activities, e.g., directly mentioning the Faith to a friend at coffee, indirectly sharing teachings on equality on a work break, etc.). Does that make sense? Brettz9 (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2025 (EST)

Sorry for the time lapse; I've been busy organizing categories at the Spanish Bahaipedia. I think it is important to consider that when we speak of 'direct vs. indirect' we are, strictly speaking, speaking of different teachings, not different methods. So for example, we might be speaking to someone about the Bábs' predilection for green tea as opposed to black tea, as if it was our own (not mentioning the Báb), so as to bring in the subject of the Faith if the person enquires further. What I mean is that the non-essential (material) aspects of the Teachings are the subject matter of indirect teaching, while the essential (spiritual) aspects are generally, the subject matter of direct teaching. To reduce the whole process to a purely methodological one would result in such anachronisms as having to, once the subject of the Faith has been mentioned, distinguish between what we meant directly vs. indirectly. Once we've made this distinction (between direct/indirect teachings vs. direct/indirect methods) we can more clearly express what those direct and indirect teachings are, free of methodological biases and our own proclivities/ideas about them. In fact, it is the undo mixture of the two that is at the root cause of mistakes in such efforts as the Ruhi courses and firesides (firesides less so because they are not from the get-go a form of direct teaching already, they are generally the result of previous indirect efforts). A practical example of a correct methodology is the "cleaning up" of articles from Wikipedia for inclusion in Bahaipedia. We don't want to exclude anyones' views, but at the same time make clear what the non-Bahá’í context of many of the views is, to the extent of clearing up its logical and other types of errors before the subject of the Faith itself is even mentioned. In sum, I think the social teachings articles would be of benefit to seekers if the authors of them are shown to be conversant with the current thinking on such subjects, in such a way that they can, in the moral teachings articles, intelligently correlate them with the Teachings. Ernobe (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2025 (EDT)

Direct vs. indirect, as used in the Writings, typically has referred to different methods. For example: "Let him consider the degree of his hearer's receptivity, and decide for himself the suitability of either the direct or indirect method of teaching" (Advent of Divine Justice). Or this from the House: "Increased experience enables them to adapt their presentation to the seeker’s needs, employing direct teaching methods that draw on the Writings to offer the message in a manner both forthcoming and inviting". That being said, I think the following agrees with your point about "the non-essential (material) aspects of the Teachings are the subject matter of indirect teaching, while the essential (spiritual) aspects are generally, the subject matter of direct teaching":

"As to your question as to what constitutes indirect teaching: It essentially consists in presenting some of the humanitarian or social teachings of the Cause which are shared by those whom we are teaching, as a means of attracting them to those aspects of the Faith which are more challenging in character, and are specifically and solely Bahá'í. The teaching of Esperanto, for instance, has been a very useful way of presenting the Cause indirectly to many people. It has opened many doors of contact for the believers, and has lately proved to be of tremendous help in introducing the Teachings into important social and intellectual circles."

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, May 28, 1937; in Lights of Guidance, no. 2028)

But note even here, it suggests that it is a method of teaching something non-Bahá'í (like teaching Esperanto) which can later allow one to bring up the Faith directly. One could in theory share spiritual/moral principles with the indirect method (e.g., by speaking about the need for morals without ascribing them to the Faith) or share social principles with the direct method (e.g., by indicating that Bahá'u'lláh taught the idea of a world language).

But I am not suggesting reducing the principles to direct vs. indirect. I just think we should have a page indicating that the Writings differentiate between direct and indirect teaching methods. (FWIW, I've added one at Direct vs. indirect teaching.)

As to your final point, "I think the social teachings articles would be of benefit to seekers if the authors of them are shown to be conversant with the current thinking on such subjects, in such a way that they can, in the moral teachings articles, intelligently correlate them with the Teachings", maybe you can give an example here. On Bahai9, we generally don't speak to current thinking on subjects, as we limit ourselves to the quotations and headings summarizing those quotations. Perhaps Bahaipedia may be a more suitable place for that, but welcome to clarify further. Brettz9 (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2025 (EDT)