Baha’i Justice

The reporter Manya A. Brachear mentions an appalling fact, entirely glossed over by every Wilmette Baha’i poster to this thread: “Goldberg’s wife was encouraged to divorce her husband.”

What Ms. Brachear doesn’t report is that Wilmette Baha’is who refuse to “shun” their spouse are themselves in turn shunned from the denomination.

It’s difficult to think of a more spiritually sick practice than this one that the fraudulent will and testament has produced, carefully hidden from new Baha’is and the general American public. Frederick

Long suppressed by Bahais of other denominations,
Reform Bahais have returned to, and renewed,
Abdu’l-Baha’s authentic 1912 Covenant.

Of the several Bahai denominations, the Reform Bahai Faith is the only denomination that follows Abdu’l-Baha’is authentic Covenant, and not what many have believed is the fraudulent will and testament of 1921.

Frederick

Susan wrote:

Obviously we don’t have a copyright over the ‘words’ of our religion but our religious organization does own certain trademarks.

Which trademarks are you referring to? Certainly no religious organization can own words like “Islam”, “Christianity”, “Baha’i”etc as trademarks. The US court’s decision over 40 years ago was unjust and needs to be reversed. James

Victor Woods wrote:
But Pepe acknowledged his Guardianship and the Aghsan lineage as well as believing in Baha’u’llah, yet these are not requirements that need to be fulfilled according to the Covenant. The only two criteria that is given is #1 he is a son (Aghsan) and #2 he was appointed by the previous Guardian.

Pepe did not acknowledge anything at all. That is an absolute 100% falsehood.. To the end of his days Pepe steadfastly refused to join the Baha’i Faith let alone take up any office. Letters from Pepe himslef attest to his, including one he sent to the mainstream Baha’is informing them that his name was being used without his permission by Leland Jensen among others despite the fact that he had protested to Jensen about it and asked him to desist.

You either do not know what you are talking about, or you are deliberately lying about Pepe. HE WAS NEVER APPOINTED GUARDIAN BY REMEY AND HE HIMSELF IS ON RECORD AS SAYING HE WAS NOT.

Or are you accusing HIM of lying? Doris

Victor Woods wrote:
Mason was the Aghsan head of the House of Justice and later Mason adopted a son whose name was Pepe and Pepe adopted Neal Chase who is a blood-line descendant of David and collateral descendant of Baha’u’llah.

Complete hogwash. Firstly – Mason Remey adopted Pepe who NEVER became a Baha’i, and who NEVER held any Baha’i office at all, and who was NEVER appointed to any office by Mason Remey, least of all guardian. Pepe was not only NOT guardian he wasn’t even a follower of Baha’u’llah!

Secondly – being a son does not automatically carry with it the office of guardianship anyway!!

Neal Chase is no more the guardian of the Baha’i Faith than donald duck is. Doris

P.S. Yes Pepe was the Guardian, even though there are people who will dispute with this by saying Pepe wasn’t even a Baha’i, or he didn’t accept this position, etc. Even if all this were true, if he was a son and appointed by the previous Guardian, we’re stuck with him. If this were the case, which it wasn’t, imagine the kind of test it would be for the people to continue to bear their allegience to such an individual and not go awhoring after other “guardians” because this was the one and only Aghsan appointed to this position. These types of test have occured throughout the history of the line of David. But Pepe acknowledged his Guardianship and the Aghsan lineage as well as believing in Baha’u’llah, yet these are not requirements that need to be fulfilled according to the Covenant. The only two criteria that is given is #1 he is a son (Aghsan) and #2 he was appointed by the previous Guardian.

No other excuse or plan or theology will stand up to this criteria. This criteria has lasted for the last 3,000 years. They have to be a son, and they have to be appointed.
Victor

Dear Jance and to all, The events that have occured in the last fifty years of the Faith are not unlike the events that occured fifty years before that or fifty years even before that. From the beginning the Path of God is continually cluttered with every conceivable machination and theology brought upon by people intent to make the straight path crooked. The pathway is easy if you follow the path, but is extremely difficult when one gets muddled in all the different theologies and methodologies. And a theology is just another excuse for breaking the Covenant. The difficulty, it seems, is in agreeing who exactly has the authority in the Baha’i Faith. That is, who is the group who is speaking with the voice of the author. The foundation of the Faith is the Covenant which is the books of the Kitab’i-Ahd and the Will & Testament. It is very simple. The line of authority comes from the Author who is Baha’u’llah. Baha’u’llah, in the Kitab’i-Ahd, names two individual successors to Himself and then the House of Justice. He appoints Abdu’l-Baha and then after Abdu’l-Baha Muhammad Ali who later broke the Covenant. So the quesion here would be, “If Baha’u’llah was divinely inspired, how come He made a mistake?” Of course Baha’u’llah didn’t make a mistake, He knew Muhammad Ali would break Covenant. Why would He purposely appoint, as His second successor after Abdu’l-Baha, someone He knew would break the Covenant? Baha’u’llah created a dichotomy where He created two infallible individual successors to Himself and this infallibility is then passed on to the ‘House of Justice’. Muhammad Ali broke the covenant so he was out, so Abdu’l-Baha appoints Shoghi Effendi and everybody is in an uproar after they hear Shoghi Effendi is named in the Will. This type of wrangling over the point of successorship is constant in the Baha’i Faith. Nothing has gotten any better, you just have to stick to the facts, maam.

Shoghi Effendi inherited conferred infallibility from the Covenant and he knew from the Will that he was to implement the House of Justice as Shoghi was the executor of the Will. He translated it and he executed it. Shoghi was unique in his Guardianship. This is why he is addressed in the W&T as the “unique and priceless pearl”. Shoghi Effendi was infallible in his mission by himself which was for him to establish this House of Justice. The House of Justice is both the legislative and judicial body and the executive head. In the Will it is the Aghsan who sits at the head or president of the House of Justice. Shoghi Effendi was an Afnan through the male line. This is why Shoghi didn’t sit at the head of the IBC which was the House of Justice in its first stage of development. The Guardian that is the head for life of that body is the Aghsan lineage of whom Mason was as he was adopted according to the laws of the east and an adopted son has all the rights and priveledges of a natural son. Abdu’l-Baha addressed Mason as his “Aghsan”. The straight path is to follow the line of Baha’u’llah today. This is what is stated in the W&T. Mason was the Aghsan head of the House of Justice and later Mason adopted a son whose name was Pepe and Pepe adopted Neal Chase who is a blood-line descendant of David and collateral descendant of Baha’u’llah. This, as I stated before, is in the prophecies from both the bible and Baha’i scriptures. So that’s easy enough, huh? The web pages are better, as I don’t write as well.

The path is easy if you just follow the Aghsan lineage.
Victor

Susan wrote:
Interesting that the Remeyites would applaud Fred who rejects the very notion of a Guardianship and the Will and Testament upon which it is based.

Interesting that Susan admits that the Guardianship of our Baha’i Faith “is based” upon the Will and Testament.
Ross

doris wrote:
How could any rational mind make the absurd leap from “Head of the International Bahá’í Council” to “Guardianship”?

Of course, the Guardian never called Mason Remey the ‘head’ of the Innternational Baha’i Council, he called him the President. That’s a very different thing. But I think there is a certain delicious justice in the fact that Marangella ends us usurping him on the basis of *his* having been appointed to president of their Second International Baha’i Council. By that logic, Remey should have become Guardian as soon as the original IBC was appointed. But wait–the Remeyites will say this was because the first IBC was never activated while the second one supposedly was. Problem is that the first IBC actually had meetings while Joel Marangella admits in the court depositions that the second IBC never actually met. In other words, the first International Baha’i Council had been activated from the start, despite the fact that their functions were limited whereas the second IBC was *never* activated. As I mentioned before, the probable reason that Joel Marangella attempted to seize leadership in 1966 is because the court injunction which the National Spiritual Assembly is currently seeking to enforce. Mason Remey was prepared to abide by the court’s decision whereas Joel Marangella was not. Susan

Janice wrote:
Victor,
I think you have failed to answer why Mason, divinely guided, would appoint a Guardian and then forget and appoint another.

You people really need to check out the timeline of Mason Remey’s supposed slip into insanity – the house of straw upon which rests marangella’s desperate usurping of the “guardianship.. “
For example when marangella was still supporting him, Remey made several “divinely guided” interpretations of some of the writings concerning what he, remey, thought was an impending natural disaster, interpretations that that proved to be demonstrably false. Yet marangella supported him in these fantasies! It was only when remey disbanded the body he had appointed marangella to and appointed Harvey as his successsor, that a desperate marangella, seeing his personal quest for leadership going up in smoke that he put together his insidous whispering campaign against remey culminating in what amounted to a coup against the guardianship when he ignored the appointment of Harvey and claimed guardianship for himself.
No amount of whitewashing, or completely ignoring Harvey’s appointment, on the orthodox propaganda website alters the truth.
The truth about marangella is that he is, essentially, Siyyid Muhammed reincarnated. It was marangella who insidiously whispered to Remey that he, Remey, should make the claim to guardianship knowing full-well that at his advanced age it would not be long until he, marangella, could take over.At every step it was marangella pulling the strings until remey’s appointment of Harvey forced an enraged and desperate marangella to put forward his own claim while remey was still living. I quote from bahai-education.org ‘s reporting of Shoghi Effendi’s own words…and ther author’s own experiences.
“At the heart of Yahyá’s Covenant-breaking was the whispering of Siyyid Muhammad, that “black-hearted scoundrel who befooled and manipulated this vain and flaccid man with consummate skill and unyielding persistence”
“To him Baha’u’llah had later referred in the Kitab-i-Aqdas as the one who had ‘led astray’ Mírzá Yahyá, and stigmatized him, in one of His Tablets, as the ‘source of envy and the quintessence of mischief,’ while Abdu’l-Bahá had described the relationship existing between these two as that of ‘the sucking child’ to the ‘much-prized breast’ of its mother.” 6
Remey’s “ill-advised” claim was just too absurd, the details of the Master’s Will too explicit and well-known. How could any rational mind make the absurd leap from “Head of the International Bahá’í Council” to “Guardianship”? Someone must have been urging him on, but who? Who was whispering in Remey’s ear? Who was saying to Remey “It’s you!”…”Don’t you see, look at what the Master has said about you?”…”Shoghi Effendi appointed you as head of the International Council, surely he meant for you to be head of the House of Justice as well!”… “Surely he was indicating that you were to be his successor!”
But who was Mason Remey’s “Siyyid Muhammad”? I’ve long suspected that it was none other than Joel Marangella.
A few days ago, I had the opportunity to ask Gloria Faizi about Mr. Faizi’s experience in France back in 1960. I asked her if it was Mr. Faizi’s conclusion that Joel was the source of Remey’s absurd claims. Her opinion was clear: “Yes, definitely yes!”
I’ve been told that a few years back, while on pilgrimage, Brent Poirer asked Mr. Furutan: “Do you think it is possible that Marangella may have planted this seed in Mason Remey’s mind?” Mr. Furutan’s answer: “NO. It is not possible. It is a fact.” Doris