Talk:Baháʼí prophecies

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahá'í Faith, a coordinated attempt to increase the quality and quantity of information about the Baháʼí Faith on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.Bahá'í FaithWikipedia:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithTemplate:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithBahá'í Faith articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is just a beginning. My idea is to give a topical overview, with an external link to the actual text behind each topic. Also the year of each statement needs to be added, to give some context. The structure of the article needs improvement as well. Wiki-uk 17:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't exactly like this page. It comes down to opinion in most cases, and there's no concrete text describing what is and isn't a prophecy. For example, Baha'u'llah said that Germany will "lament twice", and with hindsight people will say that's a prophecy. The atomic energy thing is also much in hindsight. So this page should either be short and clear, or not here. Cuñado

- Talk 18:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cunado19. This topic depends very much on interpretation, and while there are sources for the prophecys themselves (Baha'u'llah's writings) I don't think there any verifiable sources for us to have as references in regards to if the prophecies were accomplished. -- Jeff3000 19:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greenland

I think the Greenland part should be removed. I think it's very much opinion. I don't think the reference is actually saying that. Cuñado - Talk 18:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Wiki-uk 13:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a reference, I am leaving the above mentioned text here:

Should the fire of the love of God be kindled in Greenland, all the ice of that country will be melted, and its cold weather become temperate—that is, if the hearts be touched with the heat of the love of God, that territory will become a divine rose garden and a heavenly paradise, and the souls, even as fruitful trees, will acquire the utmost freshness and beauty. Effort, the utmost effort, is required.

{`Abdu'l-Bahá (1916–17). Tablets of the Divine Plan. Wilmette, Illinois, USA: Bahá'í Publishing Trust (published 1991). p. 27. ISBN 0877432333.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)

Please note that this quote does not appear in the compilation/statement Conservation and Sustainable Development in the Bahá'í Faith. - Wiki-uk (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously it is mentioned in the Baha'i News:

Hand of the Cause Mr. Robarts read the Message of The Universal House of Justice. The exciting Message inspired the friends and pointed the direction of their later deliberations. Mr. Robarts drew attention to the mention of Greenland and 'Abdu'l-Baha's prophecy concerning the melting of the ice and the warming of the climate in that land, once the hearts of the people are "touched with the heat of the love of God", He helped us to see that we have a part to play in achieving this miracle. By arising to spread the love of God 'throughout the World, the whole earth will become a Divine rose-garden."Highlights of North Atlantic Oceanic Conference". Bahá'í News (488): p. 20-21. 1971. {{cite journal}}: |page= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

and

As the Canadian Charter flight headed back toward Canada, the plane ftew across Greenland. One could see the glaciers flowing into the sea and the huge icebergs floating along the inhospitable coastline. As 250 Baha'is recited the Greatest Name. one could not but feel that the melting process was being hastened!"Highlights of North Atlantic Oceanic Conference; Spotlight on Greenland". Bahá'í News (488): p. 22. 1971. {{cite journal}}: |page= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

The question remains if this is an authorized interpretation or just one shared by several people. This passage is discussed without resolution here [1].

Shoghi Effendi does mention it, but without specifying further clarity of interpretation:

“Should the fire of the love of God be kindled in Greenland,” He significantly assures them in one of the Tablets of the Divine Plan, “all the ice of that country will be melted, and its cold weather become temperate—that is, if the hearts be touched with the heat of the love of God, that territory will become a divine rose garden and a heavenly paradise, and the souls, even as fruitful trees, will acquire the utmost freshness and beauty. Effort, the utmost effort, is required.”Effendi, Shogi (1980). Citadel of Faith. Wilmette, Illinois, USA: US Bahá’í Publishing Trust. p. 12.

Smkolins (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

To be encyclopedic this page, instead of being just a page of links, needs to describe, quote the prophecy and for historical aspects show what has happened. I think I've done that for the first three sections, and I think the page is better. We should continue to do that for the other sections, before we add any more links. -- Jeff3000 14:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon III

According to me the following section should not be included in this article:

After Napoleon's capture by the Prussians, General Louis Jules Trochu and the politician Léon Gambetta overthrew the Second Empire and established the "Government of National Defence" which later became the conservative Third Republic. Its creation was overshadowed by the subsequent revolution in Paris known as the Paris Commune, which maintained a radical regime for two months until its bloody suppression in May 1871.

-Wiki-uk 12:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not. I definitly think it should be. It gives the historical result, which I copied from other Wikipedia pages. It is historically accurate and relates to Baha'u'llah's predictions that Napoleon would fall and there would be chaos in the streets. -- Jeff3000 13:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWI

In Vignettes, there is a story of `Abdu'l Baha saying something like "there will soon be a great war in Europe. This is not based on any prophecy, just common-sense."

I don't have the book, if anybody else, could they quote that? I think it's valuable. Also, in The Servant, the General, and Armageddon it quotes `Abdu'l Baha as saying in October 1912 that

"The European continent is like an arsenal, a storehouse of explosives ready for ignition... particularly at this time when the Balkan question is before the world." (cites source as Promulgation p. 376)

The same month he said:

"We are on the eve of the Battle of Armageddon referred to in the sixteenth chapter of Revelation... The time is two years hence, when only a spark will set aflame the whole of Europe... by 1917 kingdoms will fall and cataclysms will rock the earth." (cites sources as Esslemont, Baha'u'llah and the New Era, p. 223)

I thought these would be good for the page. Cuñado - Talk 20:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sen McGlinn has tried to find the origin of Baha'i lore regarding World War One, and the authenticated sources. The results are on his blog in the entry named 1917 and all that. The short answer is that there was no such prophecy. Steve Marshall --118.92.189.27 (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to remove the 1917 statement from the article, unless the authenticity of the statement can be proven. Wiki-uk (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A personal blog is not a reliable source of information. As the statement comes in several books published through Baha'i publishers, it is a valid quote for the article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blessed is he

What's the objection to using 'Abdu'l-Baha's explanation of this prophecy? Davecornell 13:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was because this page is about prophecies in the Baha'i writings, not prophecies from other dispensations explained in the Baha'i writings. -- Jeff3000 13:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is found in the prophecies of Abdu'l-Baha section of Baha'u'llah and the New Era... Davecornell 15:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not the point, the Blessed is he prophecy is from the Book of Daniel and Abdu'l-Baha explains it. It isn't a prophecy that he made. -- Jeff3000 16:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because you made it sound like it was a prophecy about an individual, who you think is Jensen, when it's obviously not about an individual. The prophecy is about the date 1963, not about a person coming in 1963. If you had worded it correctly I wouldn't have deleted it. There are several other references by Shoghi Effendi about the significance of that year, and of course that was the first election of the Universal House of Justice.

Several prophecies have been deleted on this page because they are someone's personal interpretation. There's no cut and dry list of what is and isn't a prophecy, so if anything is disputed it gets deleted. Cuñado

- Talk 16:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cunado, if you look at the source of the quote again you would see that the entire entry I made was all a quote taken directly from Baha'u'llah and the New Era. None of it was my own commentary or personal opinion. I wouldn't mind if you wanted to include commentary to the quote. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davecornell (talk • contribs).

It's still not a prophecy made by Baha'u'llah or Abdu'l-Baha, but one they explain. -- Jeff3000 23:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quote appears in the prophecy section of Baha'u'llah and the New Era which is a properly referenced book. It is unfair to revert this on the basis it doesn't meet some individual's criteria of what should be on the page. None of my personal opinion is included. It's a direct quote. It's considered to be a Baha'i prophecy by Esslemont and has remained through several revisions of the book. 'Abdu'l-Baha explained prior to 1921 what was to happen in 1963. It's a prophecy. It belongs. Davecornell 23:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the intro of the page: "Throughout the Bahá'í Writings, future events have been prophecied." The page is about events that Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha prophecized about, not about their descriptions of prophecies from previous dispensations. For example, the descriptions that Baha'u'llah gave about the prophecies of the Quran and the Bible in the Kitab-i-Iqan would not fit here, because he's explaining those prophecies, not making his own. So while the info is verifiable, it doesn't fit on this page. It's like putting info about trains in an article on cars because they are both modes of transportation. -- Jeff3000 23:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baha'u'llah explained those prophecies as they pertained to Himself or to previous historical events. The difference here is that 'Abdu'l-Baha is explaining something to come in the future, ie a foretelling, prophesying of 1963. It's in the prophecy section of Baha'u'llah and the New Era for crying out loud.... Davecornell 00:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's not a prophecy made by Abdu'l-Baha, but one explained by him; one that is fulfilled by the Baha'i Faith, not one that the Baha'i Faith prophecizes about; there is a fundamental difference here. I really really don't think it should be here, but if you really want to put it in, don't just quote Baha'u'llah and the New Era. Quote Abdu'l-Baha from Some Answered Questions, Shoghi Effendi from God Passes By (p. 151), Shoghi Effendi from Lights of Guidance:

""There is one thing of importance for the Bahá'ís to understand; and that is, that this prophecy refers to happening within the Faith, not occurrences outside the Faith. It refers specifically to the spread of the Faith over the face of the earth. This will be accomplished when the Bahá'í Faith is firmly established in all the virgin areas outlined in the Ten-Year Crusade, and the other goals of the Crusade are completed. Thus it behooves us to work day and night in order to accomplish this glorious goal."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, May 4, 1946: Some Extracts from Letter written on behalf of the Guardian on the Subject of the Prophecy of Daniel: A Compilation from the World Center to the compiler)

Shoghi Effendi from Directives from the Guardian:

"...Sometimes people strive all their lives to render outstanding service. Here is the time and opportunity to render 55 historic services; in fact the most unique in history, aiding in the fulfillment of Daniel's Prophecies of the Last Day, and the 1335 days, when men are to be blessed by the Glory of the Lord, covering the entire globe -- which is the real goal of the Ten Year Crusade.

"In other words, when we fulfill the Ten Year Crusade we will have brought into fulfillment Daniel's great prophecy of 'Blessed is he who waits and comes to the 1335 days.' What could be more wonderful than taking part in the fulfillment of religious prophecy of over 3,000 years!

(Shoghi Effendi, Directives from the Guardian, p. 54)

There are many more writings from Shoghi Effendi regarding Daniel's prophecy. This quote summarizes much of them:

"DANIEL'S PROPHECY -- The prophecy contained in Daniel 12:12: "Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days." 'Abdu'l- Baha comments in a Tablet to a Kurdish Bahá'í, "Now concerning the verse in Daniel, the interpretation whereof thou didst ask. ... These days must be reckoned as solar and not lunar years. For according to this calculation a century will have elapsed from the dawn of the Sun of Truth, then will the teachings of God be firmly established upon the earth, and the Divine Light shall flood the world from the East even unto the West. Then, on this day, will the faithful rejoice!" 'Abdu'l-Bahá further explains in the same Tablet that the 1,335 years must be reckoned from AD 622, the year of Muhammad's flight from Mecca to Medina. Shoghi Effendi associates Daniel's reference to the 1,335 days and 'Abdu'l-Bahá's statements about the prophecy with the centenary of Bahá'u'lláh's declaration of His mission in 1863 and with the world-wide triumph of the Faith. He stressed that the prophecy refers to occurrences within the Bahá'í community, rather than to events in the outside world. While Shoghi Effendi clearly allied the Faith's triumph with the successful completion of the third teaching plan to be undertaken by the Bahá'ís, in his letters and in those written on his behalf, four specific dates are mentioned as marking the fulfilment of Daniel's prophecy: 1953, 1957, 1960, and 1963. Regarding the year 1960 (derived by a lunar reckoning), Shoghi Effendi anticipated, in God Passes By, p. 151, and in a number of his letters, the successful completion of a third Seven Year Plan that was to be inaugurated. Had there been a third Seven Year Plan, it would have concluded in 1960, one hundred lunar years after Bahá'u'lláh's declaration. When the Ten Year Crusade (1953-63) was announced in 1952, Shoghi Effendi linked its completion with the fulfilment of Daniel's prophecy. There are also several references in letters written on Shoghi Effendi's behalf that give 1957 as the date of the prophecy's fulfilment. In still other letters Shoghi Effendi allies the "hundred lunar years" after Bahá'u'lláh's declaration with the year 1953, although the significance of this hundred years is unclear. Thus it seems the prophecy is not fulfilled by a single date but, rather, by a process that extended over a period of time. A letter dated 7 March 1955 written on Shoghi Effendi's behalf says, "In the Ten Year Crusade, we are actually fulfilling the prophecy of Daniel, because with the completion of the Ten Year Crusade in 1963 we will have established the Faith in every part of the globe." Thus the fulfilment of the prophecy coincided with the period of the Ten Year Crusade, a span of time that included 1953, 1957, 1960, and 1963.

(The Universal House of Justice, Messages 1963 to 1986, p. 738)

-- Jeff3000 00:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to put the quote back in. Y'all can add what you want. Davecornell 01:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't think it should be here at all, given the coverage of this page, the burden is on you to fix it so it's not just a straight quote from "Baha'u'llah and the New Era". -- Jeff3000 01:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My original objection was that your additions were POV in the way that you worded the section, with the insinuation that "blessed is he" is referring to an individual person by that title. I also fully agree with Jeff3000 that this falls into an entirely different category: of prophecies fulfilled by the Baha'i Faith, which if expanded could fill out hundreds of pages. It's also not clear how this prophecy was fulfilled and when, so there is not a verifiable source to give a conclusion. If you search the history you'll find other deleted prophecies of this sort. Cuñado

- Talk 01:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This prophecy is different from others because a specific date is involved. I know of no other prophecy (besides the thousand year prophecy already cited) that is so specific. I would think this would be a prophecy you would want to highlight.

I'm not sure why an absolute conclusion is necessary since information is supposed to be presented on Wikipedia in such a way that people can come to their own conclusions. And saying that a conclusion from a verifiable source is required is not the same standard that's been used for other prophecies on this page.

I'd be willing to change the title to something more agreeable and use the quotes from Shoghi Effendi related to the 1335 days where he explains it's the fulfillment of the Ten Year Plan. I'd use the quote from the UHJ mentioned above but I'm not sure it's verifiable. I'm not asking to include hundreds of prophecies, just this one. Davecornell 02:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is one fundamental difference that you fail to acknoweldge; all the prophecies on this page, and the summary at the title refer to prophecies made by Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi. The prophecy you are referring to is one that is made by another dispension and is fulfilled (claimed) by the Baha'i Faith. The Blessed is he is not a Baha'i prophecy, but a Biblical prophecy. -- Jeff3000 02:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If other prophecies mentioned are not verifiable then bring it up. I wouldn't mind deleting the page for the same reason that we're arguing right now. Cuñado

- Talk 06:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notive of rampant un-encyclopaedaic content

Again and again, this article (or its headers) assigns a definite meaning to rather vague scriptural verses. When Baha'u'llah speaks of the loss of Edirne, this is said to be a prediction of the fall of the Ottoman Empire. When he mentions the "lamentations of Berlin," this is interpreted as a reference to one of the World Wars. I don't know whether to call this an NPOV violation, original research, or what. Baha'is have obviously inherited a certain way of reading these verses, which casts their founder in the best possible light, but that is not how an encyclopedia should work. "Incidental" prophecies (i.e., statements which are not cast as prophecies, but which contain information that some readers hold to be prophetic) should be treated with special caution, especially as we are dealing with individuals who did not present themselves as figures with the power to predict the future.

Also, the word "prophecy" should not be applied to just any firmly-held belief about the future, such as expectations of world peace under a world government, but would be better restricted to statements that assign some sort of time-frame to the expected events (such as, within the lifetime of a specific individual). Dawud (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to also share that there are also personal opinions creeping based on assumptions versus facts. I've removed those references, and stated the reason; however, the author of those opinions are not willing to express their source of data for that extrapolative statement. ABehjat (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ABehjat I think you're totally right. An enciclopedia can't take sides and say for a fact that prophecies are real and that prediction do happened. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bahá'í prophecies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Cole

This edit of mine was reverted and I restored it. The quote from Cole was excessively long, so I shortened it to the most germane part. I moved it to what is an obviously more logical location for the flow of the article. The only reason you would begin a topic with a contrary viewpoint (then revert back to it) before the actual topic is if you're an trying to negatively bias the article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to revert simply to push a negative bias, I will report you for edit warring. The version I'm reverting to contains the same information in a summarized form and in an appropriate place in the article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV fixes

It still needs a cleanup of the "future events" section, and needs the addition of a section on the "universal peace" controversy. There are not many reliable sources, but the John Ankerberg ref works, and here is another from Sen Mcglinn. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is better, thank you. I think it could be a good idea to add some more skeptical views however that can be made in the future. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive reliance on one source?

This article relies very heavily on one source (Smith, 2000). The other sources are either primary sources (Baha'i religious texts), or books from Baha'i publishing houses rather than academic presses. The only others are one academic article by Juan Cole, which is critical, and criticism from a Christian minister (not published in an academic venue). So really Smith (2000) and Cole (1997) are the only WP:RS on the page, and the latter is brief on the subject. Overall, it seems that the only person who has covered the topic in depth in an academic way is one Baha'i historian, so the article may not meet notability criteria (see WP:ONESOURCE). Could the article be shortened and then merged into another article? Gazelle55 (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, @PaleoNeonate: I saw your post on Baháʼí Faith and science a couple years back covering related concerns about sources, and I know you're active on these sorts of issues. Do you know how a case like this is usually handled? Best, Gazelle55 (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote to keep this page. I'm sure there are sources out there. Just delete whatever is not well written or comment it out with this  Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, could you point to those sources? I think the burden of proof is on the editors who want to keep the page to prove its notability. There's no particular section I think is poorly written, although I do wish that more of the context from Smith's book was included as opposed to just quoting Baha'i writings via his book. If the page does end up staying around perhaps I can find the book and work on that. Gazelle55 (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry not to have much time for WP these days but am glad to assist with technical information as I can. If after a cleanup nothing much is left, a merge into the main Baháʼí Faith article is a possibility (that can be done boldly leaving a redirect and {{merged from}}/{{merged to}} tags, or if contested/reverted, a more formal merge discussion can be started (WP:MERGEPROP). When the notability is contested the formal procedure is of course WP:AFD. The main article is quite large, so if anything is larger than a minor additional subsection there, this article can also be a legitimate expansion, linked from it (it presumably is, in its current state). —Paleo Neonate – 06:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, PaleoNeonate for clarifying. Cuñado, I don't mind waiting a while to see if more sources can be found. I appreciate you adding references to Esslemont, though I had academic sources in mind since these are best in terms of WP:RS. It's probably true that between Smith's other academic book (2008), Momen, MacEoin, Cole, Garlington, and Warburg, some more can be found.

Also, side note, if we are including nuclear power on this page, I think we should also include other scientific predictions. The copper-to-gold one and the no missing link prediction come to mind. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have two books arriving this week that I think will help organize the page, and yes I was already thinking scientific predictions should be separate. So far Matthews is the most thorough source and he makes the same distinction. Unfortunately I have not found sources independent of the subject. It would be a strange thing to write about. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, great, I imagine it will take a little while to update the page based on those books. No rush. I see Matthews published with George Ronald, are either of the new ones by university publishers (regardless of whether they're Baha'i)?

And so no objection if I remove the nuclear power part? Gazelle55 (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cuñado, any progress on finding reliable sources for this article? If not, I understand life is busy and I suggest a different solution. I think we can resort to WP:TNT and activate the AfD process and then rebuild the article from scratch later. We really just have Smith's encyclopedia and a quote from Cole at this point. It is basically WP:ONESOURCE at this point, and that source is a Baha'i author writing for a Baha'i-inspired publishing house. I know it can be acceptable based on WP:SPS, but the fact that it's not ideal and has almost nothing to balance it out in terms of POV makes the problem of only one source even worse. There are also other issues, for instance excessive reliance on quotations rather than summarizing in new words and I think several places which are not NPOV. So I don't think much would be lost by starting over. Let me know what you think. We may also wish to have an RfC if we can't find a way forward. Thanks, Gazelle55 (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see most of the article has been commented out now. This seems fine for the time being. After some time if the article hasn't been expanded, I would suggest it could be moved to a user sandbox to be expanded/revised and this version could be deleted or merged into another article. But I'm not in a hurry about that. Gazelle55 (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]