Baha’i Justice

It’s very interesting that the Sans-Guardian Baha’is believe they are faithfully following the Covenant when the very important documents describing that Covenant in detail, namely the Will and Testament and the Dispensation by Shoghi Effendi have basically become obsolete in such a short span of time following the passing of those two. When sacred documents need to be altered in order to follow Baha’u’llah how does that glorify Baha’u’llah? The concept of a Guardian or interpreter that would have final say in moments like this when there are misunderstandings is a great way to settle disputes. Many think we do not need one. It seems obvious that we do. The Current Headless Universal House of Justice in Haifa has managed to create an atmosphere of fear as opposed to one of respect for our enemies. Many of these Baha’i organizations seem to think that declaring someone a covenant breaker is a free opportunity to hate. It is preferable to follow the example of Baha’u’llah, who asked others to treat the Covenant breakers with respect and kindness. Once they were named Covenant Breakers the believers were simply told to avoid them, not treat them poorly. While Baha’u’llah was in the wilderness for a long period of time, he asked his family to be nice to Mirza Yahya and they (inspite of Yahya’s rudeness)endured respectfully and continued to feed him and treat him kindly. Janice

Susan wrote,

“If Remey had any claim to the Guardianship (which he did not) he legally signed that right away when he signed the following document in Nov. of 1957:
“The Custodians shall be deemed to succeed the Guardian of the Bahá’í
Faith, His Eminence the late Shoghi Effendi Rabbani, in Palestine or
Israel Branches of National Spiritual Assemblies of various countries,
which are registered in Israel, and the Custodians may nominate one or
more persons to act on their behalf in any such Israel Branches.”
Completed, sealed and signed on this 25th day of November, 1957.”
Keep in mind that Guardians are supposed to be infallible in matters of interpretation and protection of the Faith. So if he was the Guardian, signing this document could not be a mistake. In signing it he proved he was not the Guardian.”

Susan,

Who told you that Mason Remey signed away his rights by signing that spurious document? That document was not a legal document in the true Baha’i Faith. It was foreign to the true Baha’i Faith.

And who told you that if a Guardian of the Baha’i Faith makes a mistake that he proves that he is not the Guardian?

Almighty god is “unconstrained in His bidding”. If, according to His Will, He withholds some knowledge from someone, including a Guardian, in order to permit a test to take place, that does not obligate Him to reject that person or his station. When Charles Mason Remey became aware of his station on board ship to America, he became enabled to straighten out all of those previous matters and to guide the true Baha’i Faith, which he did magnificently even as the third Guardian, his successor, Joel B. Marangella is also doing magnificently. Ross

“When someone makes the sort of momentous claim that Neale Chase has made it is incumbent upon the claimant to provide proof, NOT for others to disclaim it.

And, despite your lengthy posts, Victor, you have proved nothing.”

Two criteria: Son, appointed. Show me in the Will where it says then the Guardian is to take out ads in the New York Times telling everyone he’s the Guardian and giving his proofs. There is no such provision. It is up to the people themselves to investigate. This has always been the formula. It is not for the people to test God, but God to Test His servants.

I don’t “prove” anything. What I have done is given ample evidence, in accordance with the provisions of the Will & Testament, to show the Guardianship must continue and continues to this day through the Aghsan lineage. Only an Aghsan, male heir to Baha’u’llah, can inherit the position of Guardian. This is a fact. If it isn’t, show me where this is proven false. Mason Remey was adopted by Abdu’l-Baha. This is a fact. Again, try to disprove this or who something to the contrary. The majority of the Baha’i world has said the Guardianship came to an end. I don’t see any other conclusion other than this was a huge test and the majority of the Baha’is throughout the world failed this test. Obviously, the “UHJ” isn’t the true UHJ otherwise we would have justice in the world and we are far from that. So what’s the solution? I truly mean that. Where do we go from here? I actually enjoy this forum of debate between the different groups as this is the way to come to the truth. This is Baha’i Consultation where everyone is able to express their viewpoints without the threat of being censored, like that ‘Soulpancake’ psudeo-“open” website sponsored by “Baha’is” like Rainn Wilson who say that want to ask the “big questions in life” but if you ask anything on there having to do with the Covenant or anything having to do with recent Baha’i history, you are censored. So, Maybe someone can tall me….like Janet says, that we need to have open hearts and be detached. I would like to see the unifying spirit of Baha’u’llah help us in this endeavor, to come to an acceptable agreement for everyone so instead of being dis-unified and scattered, we are able to bring our powers of perception together for the better good. What do others think?

Thank you all.
Victor

Janet wrote:
Shame on all of us …
Here we are arguing and sueing each other over who’s in charge… Once again I urge all those who might come across this note to pray for their hearts to be open and for detachement and to offer that same prayer for all living beings. God will guide us….

Friends,

I urge you to consider that all this contention is further rotten fruit of the fraudulent will and testament of 1921, driven by a hunger for power and control, proven a forgery by modern forensic science in 1930.

Reform Bahais have returned to, and renewed,
Abdu’l-Baha’s authentic 1912 Covenant, an open, sane, simple, moderate document, preserving the dignity and freedom of the individual in community, advancing no scheme of theocracy and triumphalism, but God’s loving Covenant for His creation, in this Day and Time, as Interpreted by the Center of the Covenant. Frederick

Susan,

You make a very valid point. But, please before you judge, have you read the diary of Mason Remey?
It is interesting that each Guardian has needed some time to contemplate the job before him. Shoghi Effendi took three years off and left the Greatest Holy Leaf to manage things while he spiritually prepared for the job. When reading Mason’s diary it is evident that he did not realize he was Guardian but he did realize there had to be a Guardian. Mason was certainly up to the job spiritually and when reading his diary it is evident that he was a very humble, faithful man. He was not as the Heterodox portray him at all selfish or self seeking. If anyone would like a copy, I believe there are copies in the library of congress and I also would gladly send a photocopy to anyone wanting one. Contact me at JKFranco@aol.com Janice

quinn wrote:
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.

That is pretty much what one of the Hands told Mason Remey when he tried to persuade them to elect a second Guardian (which he did before he made any claims for himself.) I think it was Mr. Samandari who said, “You can make a paper rose, but can you make it smell?”

If Remey had any claim to the Guardianship (which he did not) he legally signed that right away when he signed the following document in Nov. of 1957:

“The Custodians shall be deemed to succeed the Guardian of the Bahá’í
Faith, His Eminence the late Shoghi Effendi Rabbani, in Palestine or
Israel Branches of National Spiritual Assemblies of various countries,
which are registered in Israel, and the Custodians may nominate one or
more persons to act on their behalf in any such Israel Branches.”
Completed, sealed and signed on this 25th day of November, 1957.”

Keep in mind that Guardians are supposed to be infallible in matters of interpretation and protection of the Faith. So if he was the Guardian, signing this document could not be a mistake. In signing it he proved he was not the Guardian.Susan

Shame on all of us.
We stand at the advent of the greatest religion on earth. We are the recipients of the most blessed message ever to reach human kind. We are the few, in this vast world to recognize the potential of a truly advanced civilization.
Here we are arguing and sueing each other over who’s in charge.
Wilmette and Haife do not have a guardian. They do not want a guardian. Neal Chase thinks he is guardian. I say follow who you think is most capable and let others follow who they think is most capable. Ultimatly God will guide us all if we are sincere and cultivate detachement. What ever my doubts may be, the world is in need and time is running out. Once again I urge all those who might come across this note to pray for their hearts to be open and for detachement and to offer that same prayer for all living beings. God will guide us.

The truth is within and without.
Thanks for reading. Janet

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

Victor wrote:
“
“As for Pepe’s supposedly adopting Neal Chase as his own son, no such adoption ever took place.”
If you are privy of evidence to the contrary you should provide it.

Absolutely not. When someone makes the sort of momentous claim that Neale Chase has made it is incumbent upon the claimant to provide proof, NOT for others to disclaim it.

And, despite your lengthy posts, Victor, you have proved nothing. Quinn

doris wrote:
Victor wrote: “The Baha’is go by the law of primogeniture, which to the oldest or ONLY son goes the inheritence which is both physical and administrative when it comes to the Guardianship.”
You keep saying that…and you’re wrong. Baha’u’llah instructed people to turn to The Master after His passing because of the spiritual, God-like qualities The Master possessed. Qualities that none of us can ever match no matter who we are – towering, beautiful, unique qualities that made hime the Mystery of God.
You insult and denegrate Baha’u’llah’s choice by saying that the choice was made because The Master was simply the oldest son as though Baha’u’llah’s chosen successor was a matter not of eternal closeness to God, but of the fleeting matter of time, of which the Worlds of God beyond this one are free. How pitiful!
In the spiritual worlds to come it is the marvellous spiritual qualities of The Master that make him who he is, and are the reasons he was chosen, not the fleeting matter of chronological birth dates on this planet which are of less consequence than the blink of an eye spiritually!
Shame on you.Doris

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)

Victor