Re: Chicago Tribune Article

Janice wrote:
I would guess then, that since Marangella was appointed by Mason, he must have considered him an Aghsan or he would not have been able to appoint him. Why is he not the rightful Guardian in your eyes.

Mason was testing the believers. Mason said that he was going to test the Baha’is even further as they would not know who the next Guardian was. The line of succession is from father to son. Marangella wasn’t Mason’s son. Donald Harvey wasn’t Mason’s son. It doesn’t matter what the Baha’is believe of think. The Guardian is determined by the two-part criteria as well as used by him to ensure a successor. The test was if people were going to follow the Aghsan lineage or not without adding to or amending the criteria. By Mason establishing a second IBC and placing Marangella at the head of it, does not immediately constitute an appointment to the Guardianship. Number one…(God, I sound like an echo)…he has to be a son, and he has to be appointed. The law of primogeniture is the inheritance goes to the oldest son or only son. If you want you could say that in the W&T it says that if the Guardian cannot attend the meetings himself, then he can appoint one to represent him. But that’s different than having a son who inherits your position. This was the test.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.