Victor wrote:
Shame on me? Shame on you for claiming to be a Baha’i and not knowing the writings and going against the hereditary principal which, is invariably upheld by the Will of God.
“in the verses of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas the implications of which clearly anticipate the institution of the Guardianship; in the explanation which ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, in one of His Tablets, has given to, and the emphasis He has placed upon, the hereditary principle and the law of primogeniture as having been upheld by the Prophets of the past — in these we can discern the faint glimmerings and discover the earliest intimation of the nature and working of the Administrative Order which the Will of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá was at a later time destined to proclaim and formally establish.
(8 February 1934, published in “The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh”, p. 147)
You miss Doris’ spiritual point again (as you continually fail to grasp the spiritual points Janice makes).You treat the Guardianship as though it were a material possession: “To my second son goes my clothes, to my first son goes the Guardianship…”
The law of primogeniture as applied to God`s will is not one of mere material and worldy things but of spirituality. You can be the ONLY son and inherit all the money, furniture, and worldy possession you like but if you aren’t up to the job spiritually you do NOT inherit the Guardianship. And there is no way in any World of Goid that Neale Chase is up to it spiritually!
Yes – shame on you indeed for twisting the truth so as to crowbar Neale Chase into the equation.
You know, Victor, usually when we’re are in a tiny minority …it`s not because we are the only one who is right. Think about that.Quinn