An historical analysis of critical transformations
Yüklə 2,06 Mb.
|
|
sor. The “principle of successorship, endowed with the right of Divine interpretation,” described by Ruhiyyih Khanum as “the very hub of the Cause,” was thus wrenched from the Baha’i wheel; but rather than “throw away the whole thing,” which at a previous period in the faith was seen as the inevitable and logical recourse, the Baha’i leaders, Ruhiyyih Kha- num herself being one of the principal figures, decided on a not so drastic course of picking up the pieces and managing as best they could un- til the election of the infallible Universal House of Justice. That supreme body ruled in effect that the living guardianship had ended with the death of Shoghi Effendi. Some Baha’is, however, disagreed. MASON REMEY’S OPPOSITION TO THE TRANSFORMATION The leading voice, and for a time the sole voice, in opposing the abandonment of the living guardianship was Charles Mason Remey, a hand of the cause and president of the International Baha’i Council. Mason Remey at the time of Shoghi Effendi’s death in 1957 was eighty- three years old, having been born in Burlington, Iowa, on May 15, 1874. He was one of the earliest American converts to the faith, having accepted the Baha’i message upon hearing it in 1899-1900 from May Ellis Bolles, later Mrs. Sutherland Maxwell, the mother of Ruhiyyih Khanum.33 He made four visits to ‘Abdu’l-Baha between 1901 and 1908, before ‘Abdu’l-Baha gained his freedom. At the time of the first visit, Shoghi Effendi was only four years old. Another visit was made two years after his release and again when ‘Abdu’l-Baha was in London, Eingland.34 At the beginning of the war years in 1914, Mason Remey and George Latimer made a tour through various countries, visiting Baha’i centers, on their way to visit ‘Abdu’l- Baha.35 Mason Remey was also the recipient of a number of tablets from ‘Abdu’l-Baha.36 Remey travelled widely in Europe and South America, spreading the Baha’i teachings.37 He wrote extensively about the faith.38 He was the architect for various Baha’i buildings, including the Baha’i temples in Kampala, Uganda, and in Sydney, Australia. In 1951, Shoghi Effendi appointed him as president of the International Baha’i Council and also as a hand of the cause. He was one of the hands who sealed Shoghi Effendi’s safe and desk drawers after the guardian’s death and who later examined his papers and certified that no will had been found. Remey indicates that at the time of the first conclave of the hands in November, 1957, he thought that he “might become the Guardian of the Faith in some way or another,” but he “did not know how.”39 All was rather vague in his mind during those confusing days immediately following Shoghi Effendi’s passing, and so he succumbed to the majority opinion and signed his name along with the other hands to the “Proclamation” issued on November 23, 1957, indicating that “no successor to Shoghi Effendi could have been appointed by him.”40 At the second conclave of the hands in November, 1958, Remey says that he had “the vague thought” of himself “as a possible Guardian of the Faith” and he felt that someone other than he should “Make the stand that the hope for the continuation of the Guardianship should not be aban- doned.” No one else made such a stand. Remey remained silent until the last session of the conclave, when he “took the floor, and told the members of the conclave that they were violating the Will and Testament of the Mas- ter ‘Abdu’l-Baha in their attitude of not wanting a continuation of the Guardianship.” Remey was ruled out of order for bringing up a subject on which the hands had already acted.41 One of the decisions at the third conclave of the hands in 1959 was to elect in 1961 new officers to the International Baha’i Council to hold a two-year term until the election of the Universal House of Justice in 1963. Remey refused to sign the message of the hands from the third conclave and went into “voluntary exile” in Washington, D.C., where he began to collect his thoughts and compose his “appeals” to the hands of the cause. Three appeals were issued: “An Appeal to the Hands of the Faith in the Holy Land,” “Another Appeal to the Hands of the Baha’i Faith,” and “A Last Appeal to Hands of the Faith.”42
of Ruhiyyih Khanum, Leroy Ioas, and other of the hands to the annual con- vention of the Baha’is in the United States, Remey seeks to prepare them for that visit, indicating that the American Baha’is “still hope for a Guardian,” and pledging his efforts to try to build up the trust of the American Baha’is in the hands, although he disagrees with them on their stand concerning the guardianship. He believes that the American believers
donment of the program for 1963.” He mentions that “something is going to happen as a surprise to the Baha’i world from another direction altoge- ther,” perhaps hinting at his announcement of himself as the second guar- dian, if at this time he has reached this conviction, and maintains that the hands for the most part will have to take an awful thrashing.” He tells the hand: “I know that you are up the wrong track and that in the end your majority will be obliged to acknowledge your mistake.”43 Remey’s second appeal consists of a series of letters in which he maintains that the hands should be awaiting the appearance of the second guardian.
for in this work he takes a more forceful stand against the position of the hands, and although he does not declare himself the second guardian, the work reveals that he has come to regard himself as holding this sta- tion.44 The major points in this work may be summarized as follows.
that the living guardianship has ended, that likewise they have no authority to call for the election of an International Baha’i Council or for the election of the Universal House of Justice,45 and that in the Baha’i teachings “the Hands of the Faith are given no authority to control anything.46 Nor have the hands any power, Remey maintains, to put anyone out of an office who was placed there by the guardian of the faith.47 Remey evidently is thinking here of the call by the hands for an election of the International Baha’i Council, whose members were appointed by Shoghi Effen- di. “The only prerogative bestowed upon the Hands of the Faith in the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Baha,” Remey says, “is that they propagate and that they protect the Faith.”48 Remey maintains that the hands, thus, are in “violation of the Will and Testament” of ‘Abdu’l-Baha.”49
tion in the faith similar to the days of ‘Abdu’l-Baha “when we only knew about the Covenant and knew nothing about the Administration under a Guardian.” According to Remey, “the elimination of the Guardianship eliminates the message” which Baha’is have to give to the world, for the guardianship is “the heart of the Administration” established by ‘Abdu’l- Baha’s will and testament,50 a position similar to that previously held by Ruhiyyih Khanum when she describes the guardianship as the “hub” in the wheel without which the rest would have to be thrown away.
without the guardianship the institution of the hands also will not exist within a generation or two because only the guardian can appoint hands of the cause, thus eliminating the first two of the essentials of a kingdom (the king, his nobility, and his people), and “the Cause ere long will be but an indiscriminate mass of people trying to rule and regulate them- selves!”51
the Universal House of Justice: The Universal House of Justice can only function in its infalli- bility when it has these two supports—the International Assembly alone without the Guardianship cannot be the Universal House of Justice.52 Such a House of Justice with no guardian as its president would be merely “a human democratic institution proclaiming the voice of the people.”53 Remey compares the position of the hands with that of Ahmad Sohrab, who accepted Baha’u’llah’s and ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s teachings but who “refused to accept the Guardianship of the Faith as provided for in the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Baha.”54 Remey points out that the proposal to abandon the guardianship was advanced first by one of the ten Persian hands and that “all of the other Persian Hands quickly arose in support of this move, with the result that this move had the immediate support of the majority of the Hands.” Remey believes that the Persian hands had “consulted amongst themselves” between the first two meetings of the first conclave of the hands and that “they had come to an agreement between themselves that the Guardianship be abandoned.”55 Remey believes that the Baha’is in the Orient “have never been as keen about the Administration as have been the Baha’is of Ameri- ca.”56 Remey maintains that the course being pursued by the hands would result eventually in a split in the faith, especially between the Orient and the Occident.57 He expresses a strong confidence that the American Baha’is would resist the hands if they knew that the hands had closed the matter of the guardianship: If the American Baha’is as a whole should realize that the very exis- tence of the Faith is now at stake, it would indeed create an agita- tion in the Cause because America is the Cradle of the Administration of the Faith and the strength of the Administration is firmly rooted in the consciousness that envelopes them very strongly and to which they will cling.58 Again, he states, “In my opinion the American Baha’is are just not going to take this violation of the Will and Testament that you are trying to put over on the Baha’i world!”59
will and the destruction of the faith, he asserts his authority as the president of the International Baha’i Council, appointed by Shoghi Effendi, to call for a halt to the program of the hands concerning the election of a new International Council and the election of the Universal House of Jus- tice. Remey’s position could not be disputed, for Shoghi Effendi had ap- pointed him to the presidency of the council and had announced his appoint- ment to the Baha’i world. Remey maintained, therefore, that he could call a halt to any steps being taken about the council of which he, as its ap- pointed president, did not approve. The calling of a halt to steps taken concerning the council would necessarily stop the steps being taken regar- ding the House of Justice, which was to evolve from the International Coun- cil.
administrative machinery. His position as president of the council was undisputed, whereas the hands had no clear authority in Baha’i texts to exercise any administrative authority over the faith but were agents of the guardian to carry out his biddings. Their functions were propagation and protection of the faith. Remey maintains that they were not pro- tecting the faith but violating the faith. The authority assumed by the hands after Shoghi Effendi’s death was based on the words of his last mes- sage that the hands were “the Chief Stewards of Baha’u’llah’s embryonic World Commonwealth,” but even in this last message no administrative powers are passed to them. They are described as “invested … with the dual function of guarding over the security, and of insuring the propagation,” of the faith.61
his “instructions to organize anything or to do anything at all”62 about the council is his position as president and that “the Council has always been a quiescent body, the duties of which have never been assigned or designated,”63 then one may question what authority Remey had for declar- ing that Shoghi Effendi had placed “the reins of power in my hands over the body of Hands and thus over the believers of all the world by my ap- pointment as President of the Baha’i International Council” and that he was “now in command of the Baha’i Faith.”64 In other words, if Shoghi Effendi never activated the council during his lifetime, then Mason Remey seemingly could exercise no authority as president of a quiescent body. Remey’s authority as asserted is his Last Appeal is on the basis of his being president of the International Baha’i Council, not on his being the second Guardian. Remey, therefore, had no active power as the president of the International Council.
ment has some validity: My position … while it did not allow me to go ahead with the activities of the Council in the days of Shoghi Effendi, now gives me the authority not to do anything with or about the Council until so commanded by the Second Guardian of the Faith.65 Remey, as president of the council, could keep it from functioning, since no higher administrative power in the faith existed which could compel him to activate the council as a functioning body. The individual members of the council had carried out Shoghi Effendi’s directions, but the council never assembled to function as a body.
his point is valid that no one person or body of persons had authority after Shoghi Effendi’s death to initiate steps to elect a new council whose original members were appointed by Shoghi Effendi himself. The authority which the hands assumed after the guardian’s passing was con- ceded to them by the national assemblies but was not granted to them by the Baha’i writings. The Universal House of Justice later commented on the action of the hands: Following the passing of Shoghi Effendi the international administration of the Faith was carried on by the Hands of the Cause of God with the complete agreement and loyalty of the na- tional spiritual assemblies and the body of the believers. This was in accordance with the Guardian’s designation of the Hands as the “Chief Stewards of Baha’u’llah’s embryonic World Common- wealth.66
hands did begin administering the international affairs of the faith, and that the national assemblies agreed to this arrangement, states the basis upon which the hands so acted, and by implication approves of the conduct without stating definitely that the action was in accord with their right- ful authority. The statement by the House of Justice that the hands rea- lized that “they had no certainty of Divine guidance such as is incontro- vertibly assured to the Guardian and to the Universal House of Justice”67 allows the possibility that they could have overstepped their legitimate authority. Had Remey persisted in his stand within the faith as the presi- dent of the International Baha’i Council to oppose the authority of the hands to do anything concerning the council, he might have created legal problems in the functioning of the faith’s processes, whether or not the majority in the end would have bypassed him, but Remey soon after announced himself as the second guardian, a position not as explicitly designated as his presidency of the International Council, and was promptly expelled from the faith, thus solving any difficulties facing the hands in their projec- ted endeavors. The expulsion of Remey from the faith by the hands, of course, also raises the question of what clear authority the hands had for this action, but the basis upon which Remey claimed the guardianship was more easily attacked than his appointment as council president, considering the lack of an explicit appointment as well as the fact that Remey did not assert his claim for three years after Shoghi Effendi’s death. In his Last Appeal to the hands, Remey did not openly claim the guardianship, but various hints are given that he considers himself the new guardian. He indicates that the hands should know without being told who the second guardian is and says that he has known “for the past eleven or twelve years who the Second Guardian was to be.”68 He promises that if the hands will follow his urging and at the next conclave will restore hope in the guardianship that the second guardian will emerge “from his occultation” to take command of the faith.69 The guardian, he says, is “with us but waiting to be wanted”70 and “is delaying his coming forth from his occultation in the hope that the Hands of the Cause will want to welcome him when he comes to them.”71 By the stand he is taking in his message to the hands he is, he holds, “assuming a command tantamount to that of a Guardian of the Faith to be obeyed by all.”72 He affirms “I am the protector of the Faith”;73 “I guard the faith.”74 By Ridvan 117, Remey said: “all was clear to me.”75 He first announced himself as the second guardian to the hands of the faith and then before the Ridvan convention in Wilmette, Illiniois. Remey hoped and even expected that the Baha’is in America, “the Cradle of the Administra- tion,” would accept his as guardian. He had previously warned the hands that the American believers would not sanction their stand against the guardianship. He wrote a letter, dated March, 1960 (the day not indica- ted), to Charlie Wolcott, secretary of the National Spiritual Assembly in the United States, enclosing a copy of his Proclamation to be read before the national convention and outlining the procedure by which he was to be conducted formally to Wilmette to meet with the Baha’i leaders if the con- vention should accept his guardianship. The printed Proclamation contains five pages with these words on the cover: “Proclamation to the Baha’is of the World through the Annual Convention of the Baha’is of the United States of America Assembled at Wilmette, Illinois, Ridvan 117 Baha’i Era, from Mason Remey, the Second Guardian of the Baha’i Faith.” Remey introduces himself in the Proclama-
as the president of the International Baha’i Council, and declares that he is, therefore, “the President of the Embryonic Universal House of Justice,” and that “when this August body become the Universal House of Justice,” if during his lifetime, he “will then be the President of the First Universal House of Justice of the Baha’i Dispensation” (‘Abdu’l-Baha’s will and testa- ment indicates that the presidency of the Universal House of Justice is a position to be filled by the guardian.) He charges the hands with fla- grantly violating the will of ‘Abdu’l-Baha by their “program for 1963.”76 Remey says that be is “fully confident” of the American believers’ “support and cooperation in all Baha’i matters for you understand the Adminis- tration of the Faith” and indicates that he expects the Baha’is at the con- vention “to accept me without question as their Commander-in-Chief in all Baha’i matters and to follow me so long as I live for I am the Guardian of the Faith—the Infallible Guardian of the Baha’i Faith.” He maintains: “The line of the Guardianship of the Baha’i Faith in unbroken for I have been the Guardian of the Faith since the death of the Beloved Guardian Shoghi Effen- di,” signing the document as “Mason R., Guardian of the Baha’i Faith.”77 Remey’s hopes of being accepted officially as the second guardian by the Baha’is in convention, however, were not realized, and he mentioned in a later writing that almost the entire Baha’i world, it would seem, en- dorsed the violation of the Hands of the Faith in their repudiation” of Sho- ghi Effendi’s appointment of him, as he maintains, as the second guardian.78 Although with only a small following, Remey believed that his cause was right and that it would eventually triumph over the violation of the hands and those who followed them. After his Proclamation, Remey issued three encyclical letters to the Baha’i world, setting forth his position. Remey’s claim to the guardian- ship rests primarily upon Shoghi Effendi’s appointment of him as presi- dent of the International Baha’i Council, which Shoghi Effendi said would evolve into the Universal House of Justice. He points out that this appoint- ment was made during Shoghi Effendi’s lifetime and was thus in accord with the requirement in ‘Abudu’l-Baha’s will that Shoghi Effendi appoint him suc- cessor during his lifetime. He admits that his “appointment was veiled at the time” but that nonetheless it was “very clear and concise and not to be misunderstood.”79 He finds that in his attempt to stop the hands from violating the will and testament by endorsing the termination of the living guardianship he was even then guarding the Baha’i faith, although not yet fully aware of his station.
guardianship nor attempting to usurp that office but merely announcing to the Baha’i world an appointment which Shoghi Effendi himself had made. “The Guardians of the Faith do not appoint themselves, for they are appoin- ted—each Guardian by his predecessor.”80 To the charge that he is attemp- ting to cause schism in the faith, Remey answers: The Hands of the Cause accuse me of attempting to create a split in the Cause—as if this were a bad thing for the Baha’i Faith! I am indeed making a split in the Faith, for I am separating the dis- eased from the healthy living spiritual organisms of the body of the Baha’is. Such was the manner in which The Blessed Master saved the Faith in his day and the Beloved Guardian saved the Faith in his day.81 He declares all the hands who signed the message from the third conclave, November, 1959, to be “cut off from the Baha’i Faith”82 and “expels from the Faith all who stand with and give support to these former Hands of the Faith.”83 He declares that all those who “proclaim themselves to be ‘Ba- ha’is Sans Guardianship’, should not be considered as Baha’is, for the only true and legitimate Baha’is are those now serving under the Second Guardian of the Faith.”84
Remey, considering themselves the true Baha’is and Mason Remey and his fol- lowers as covenant-breakers and, thus, outside the faith and not entitled to identify themselves as Baha’is. Arguments against Remey’s Claim Two major arguments are raised against Remey’s claim of being Shoghi Effendi’s successor in the guardianship. Not a Descendant of Baha’u’llah ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s will and testament specifies that the appointed successor “must be the essence of purity, [and] must show in himself the fear of God, knowledge, wisdom and learning,” and provides that if “the first-born of the guardian of the Cause of God” does not meet these quali- fications, then the guardian must “choose another branch to succeed him.”85 The word “branch” could mean another of the guardian’s sons or could mean one of the Aghsan (“Branches”), male descendants of Baha’u’llah. The House of Justice points out, however, that Shoghi Effendi had no children and all the surviving Aghsan had broken the Covenant. Thus, as the Hands of the Cause stated in 1957, it is clear that there was no one he could have appointed in accor- dance with the provisions of the Will. To have made an appoint- ment outside the clear and specific provisions of the Master’s Will and Testament would obviously have been an impossible and unthinkable course of action for the Guardian, the divinely appointed upholder and defender of the Covenant.86 How the institution of the guardianship, the essentiality of which is so clearly upheld in the Baha’i writings, could suddenly come to naught seems to have been explained by the Persian hands at the first conclave of the hands by the concept of bada, God’s changing his mind.87 This concept, no doubt quite familiar to the Persian Baha’is but not so well known to Western Baha’is, asserts that “God can change his mind, especially in the designation of a prophet or Imam.” It was one of the heresies charged against the Babis. The classic use of the term, Edward G. Browne points out, was the sixth Imam’s traditional saying in reference to his sons, “God never changed His mind about anything as He did about Isma‘il.”88 Ja‘far-i-Sadiq, the sixth Imam, desired for Isma‘il to succeed him but he subsequently appointed instead his other son Musa as seventh Imam, through whom the “Twelver” sect continues the line of Imams to Mu- hammad, the twelfth Imam. The “seveners” regard Isma‘il as the seventh and last Imam.
changed his mind and ended the guardianship but that God changed his mind about the guardianship’s being passed on within Baha’u’llah’s family:
the Beloved Guardian’s carrying out this order of inheritance that was written in the Will and Testament. … Then it was that the Beloved Guardian in his infallibility designated that I, Mason Remey, succeed him in the Guardianship of the Faith.89
Baha’s reference to the occasion of Christ’s brothers seeking him, when Christ “answered that His brothers were those who believed in God. …” In this context, ‘Abdu’l-Baha speaks of “the Divine Gardener who “cuts off the dry or weak branch from the good tree and grafts to it, a branch from another tree.”90 Remey’s followers see in these passages a spiri- tual inheritance in the “hereditary Guardianship” which allowed Shoghi Effendi to choose to succeed him “another branch” outside of the natural branches.
acknowledged any appointed successor. ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s will and testament stipulated: The Hands of the Cause of God must elect from their own number nine persons that shall at all times be occupied in the important services in the work of the guardian of the Cause of God. The election of these nine must be carried either unani- mously or by majority from the company of the hands of the Cause of God and these, whether unanimously or by a majority vote, must give their assent to the choice of the one whom the guardian of the Cause of God hath chosen as his successor.91
against the guardian’s choice of his successor, an interpretation held by Ahmad Sohrab, who points out in reference to the hands that “consi- dering that the members of this body cannot be dismissed or expelled, a mighty deadlock might ensue.”92 That is, the guardian and the hands would be at odds, and the guardian could do nothing to see that his choice of a successor should become the next guardian.
Remey’s claim? Even if Shoghi Effendi should have appointed him as suc- cessor, as he holds, the hands never acknowledged him as the new guar- dian. The House of Justice pointed out that ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s will provided a clear means for the confirmation of the Guardian’s appoint- ment of his successor. … The nine Hands to be elected by the body of the Hands were to give their assent by secret ballot to the Guardian’s choice. In 1957 the entire body of the Hands, after fully investigating the matter, announced that Shoghi Effendi had appointed no successor and left no will. This is documented and es- tablished.93
by the lack of any confirmation of his appointment by the hands, that is, if one should interpret the passage in the will as meaning that the hands could block the guardian’s choice of a successor. Shoghi Effendi did not so interpret the passage:
the Hands of the Cause of God have been given the authority to overrule the Guardian. ‘Abdu’l-Baha could not have provided for a conflict of authority in the Faith. This is obvious, in view of His own words, which you will find on p. 13 (p. 11 of 1944 U.S. Edition) of the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, “The mighty stronghold shall remain impregnable and safe through obedience to him who is the guardian of the Cause of God, to turn unto him and be lowly before him. He that opposeth him hath opposed the True One”, etc.94 In Shoghi Effendi’s understanding, then, the hands have not the power to overrule the guardian or to set up a “deadlock,” as Sohrab mentions, and, therefore, the argument that the hands did not consent to Remey’s appointment would not be valid for those who hold that Shoghi Effendi appointed Mason Remey to the guardianship.
persons” to be “occupied in the important services in the work of the guardian,” and although the hands had power in themselves to elect this body, they were to be elected evidently during the guardian’s lifetime to assist him in his work, and since this body was nonexistent when Shoghi Effendi passed away, they were not in a position to carry out the will’s provision to assent to the guardian’s choice.
of the Baha’is who refused to accept Remey’s guardianship in regard to the institution of the guardianship. They do not see themselves as having abandoned the institution of the guardianship. The hands sent forth their messages to the Baha’i world by signing themselves as “In the Service of the Beloved Guardian of the Faith,” i.e. Shoghi Effendi. Mason Remey would not sign the message from the third conclave partly
Effendi’s death as “In the Service of the Second Guardian of the Baha’i Faith.”95
of Justice concerning the guardianship reveals that it did not state any abandonment of the guardianship nor declare that the guardianship had ended. It merely pointed out that it could find no way to appoint or legislate to make it possible to appoint a second Guardian to succeed Shoghi Effendi.”96 The institution of the guardianship, therefore, simply came to a standstill. Baha’is still look to the writings of Shoghi Effen- di, and his guardianship, in a sense, still continues through his written words. Quite pointedly, the Universal House of Justice wrote:
the Order of Baha’u’llah merely because there is no living Guar- dian. We must guard against two extremes: one is to argue that because there is no Guardian all that was written about the Guardianship and its position in the Baha’i world Order is a dead letter and was unimportant; the other is to be so overwhelmed by the significance of the Guardianship as to underestimate the strength of the Covenant, or to be tempted to compromise with the clear Texts in order to find somehow, in some way, a “Guardian.”97 The Guardianship and the Universal House of Justice One of Remey’s contentions was that the Baha’is overstepped their authority in calling for the election of the Universal House of Justice because only the guardian could call for its election. But the Universal House of Justice maintained that “there is nothing in the Texts to indicate that the election of the Universal House of Justice could be called only by the Guardian” and pointed out that ‘Abdu’l- Baha had “envisaged the calling of its election in His own lifetime.” At one point when ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s life was threatened, it noted, ‘Abdu’l- Baha wrote to Haji Mirza Taqi Afnan “commanding him to arrange for the election of the Universal House of Justice should the threats against the Master materialize.”98
libility to the Universal House of Justice and that without him the House would be merely a democratic body. The House of Justice, however, stated:
within its ordained sphere, has not been made dependent upon the presence in its membership of the Guardian of the Cause.59
the sphere of the legislative action” of the Universal House of Justice. The question therefore arises: In the absence of the Guardian, is the Universal House of Justice in danger of straying outside its proper sphere and thus falling into error? Here we must remember three things: First, Shoghi Effendi, during the thirty-six years of his Guardianship, has already made innumerable such definitions, supplementing those made by ‘Abdu’l-Baha and by Baha’u’llah Him- self. As already announced to the friends, a careful study of the Writings and interpretation on any subject on which the House of Justice proposes to legislate always precedes its act of legis- lation. Second, the Universal House of Justice, itself assured of Divine guidance, is well aware of the absence of the Guardian and will approach all matters of legislation only when certain of its sphere of jurisdiction, a sphere which the Guardian has confidently described as “clearly defined.” Third, we must not forget the Guardian’s written statement about these two institutions: “Neither can, nor will ever, infringe upon the sacred and prescribed domain of the other.”100
the inseparability of the institutions of the guardianship and the Uni- versal House of Justice, whether they may function independently. On this question, the Universal House of Justice wrote: Whereas he obviously envisaged their functioning together, it can- not logically be deduced from this that one is unable to function in the absence of the other. During the whole thirty-six years of his Guardianship Shoghi Effendi functioned without the Universal House of Justice. Now the Universal House of Justice must function without the Guardian, but the principle of inseparability remains.101 One of the ironies of Baha’i teachings is that these “two inseparable institutions” actually were never united. A distance of some six years intervened between Shoghi Effendi’s guardianship and the beginning of the Universal House of Justice. The Continental Boards of Counselors The Baha’i texts do not indicate how long the term of office may be of the members of the Universal House of Justice. But in October, 1963, the House announced that the next election for the Universal House of Justice would be held in the spring of 1968. Accordingly, at that time the newly elected Universal House of Justice took office. One of its first actions was to deal with the problem of being unable to appoint new hands of the cause. ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s will indicated: “The Hands of the Cause of God must be nominated and appointed by the guardian of the Cause of God.”102 Without a living Guardian to appoint new hands, this body eventually will expire. The Universal House of Justice pre- viously ruled in November, 1964, that “there is no way to appoint, or legis- late to make it possible to appoint, Hands of the Cause of God.”103 In June, 1968, the newly elected Universal House of Justice established eleven continental boards of counselors in Northwestern Africa, Central and East Africa, Southern Africa, North America, Central America, South America, Western Asia, Southeast Asia, Northeast Asia, Australasia, Europe.104
establish these boards, the Universal House of Justice indicated that “this significant step,” following consultation with the hands, “insures (the) extension (in the) future (of the) appointed functions (of) their institution.”105 The board members were appointed on June 24. Their duties are the propagation and protection of the faith. They also are to assume the direction of the auxiliary boards to the hands, thus freeing the hands of this responsibility and allowing them to increase their inter- continental services. Unlike the hands, who are appointed for life, the members of the continental boards serve a term of office. DEVELOPMENTS IN THE ORTHODOX BAHA’I FAITH Mason Remey, being rejected by the majority of Baha’is and expelled from the faith by the hands of the cause, began to organize the Baha’is who accepted him as the second guardian. They called them- selves the Baha’is under the Guardianship, then the Baha’is under the Hereditary Guardianship, and finally the Orthodox Baha’is to distin- guish themselves as the true Baha’is from the “Sans Guardian Baha’is.” Doctrine of the Great Global Catastrophe One teaching given particular emphasis in Mason Remey’s writings concerns a “great global catastrophe.” Remey combined certain Biblical, Qur’anic, and Baha’i prophecies relating to a coming day of tribulation and judgment with current geological theories, particularly as popularized by Charles H. Hapgood,106 to arrive at a concept of a coming catastrophe brought on by a shifting of the earth’s crust which will produce cataclys- mic changes in the earth’s atmosphere and surface, killing two-thirds of the earth’s population. Concerning Daniel’s prophecy (chapter 12), Remey asserts:
the one thousand three hundred and five and thirty days indicated the date 1917 A.D. and they wished to know just what might be ex- pected to happen in the world at that time.107 According to Remey, he asked ‘Abdu’l-Baha what would happen in the world at that time and received the reply that “after the year 1917 there is coming a very great catastrophe in the world!” Remey then asked: “Would this be soon after 1917, or in the distant future?” ‘Abdu’l-Baha, he says, answered: “Not soon after nor distant.”108 Remey says that years later Shoghi Effendi told the world that 1963 would be the year of fulfillment” of “the abomination of desolation.”109
directed his followers to prepare the future center of their national Baha’i administrative headquarters in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and of their international European center in the capital city of Berne in the Swiss Oberland,110 areas which he believed would survive the catastrophe.
Chicago to Santa Fe, where at an altitude of 7000 feet above sea level, he deposited them in fireproof storage.111 Believing that time was running out before the great catastrophe, Remey wrote on June 19, 1962, to the National Spiritual Assembly in Wilmette urging them to “lose no time in preserving the archives of the Faith that are now in the crypt of the Temple” by removing them to a place of safety high above sea level. He indicates in this letter that he had previously written to Ruhiyyih Khanum ordering her to remove the remains of Shoghi Effendi from the Great Northern Cemetery in New Southgate to Mt. Carmel in Haifa. The location of Shoghi Effendi’s present tomb, Remey maintained, would be inundated along with all of London except for a high portion of Hamp- stead Heights. According to Remey, Chicago and Wilmette are also doomed for destruction in the catastrophe.112 Remey later set the date of the great catastrophe forward to May, 1995. Incorporation under the Second Guardian From Florence, Italy, November 30, 1962, Remey outlined the preliminary steps toward the election of national spiritual assemblies of the Baha’is under his guardianship. He appointed three local assem- blies to serve as “mother assemblies” for three nations. Each mother assembly would be in charge of organizing elections leading to the forma- tion of national assemblies. The appointed mother assemblies were the Local Spiritual Assembly in Santa Fe for the United States, the local assembly in Rawalpindi for Pakistan, aid the local assembly of Lucknow for India. From the reports from the three mother assemblies on the number of local assemblies, groups, and isolated believers, Remey decided on the number of delegates to be elected for the national conventions.113
United States and in Pakistan, were formed in 1963. According to the Glad Tidings, a bulletin of the Baha’is under the second guardian, almost all the Baha’is in Pakistan accepted Mason Remey as second guardian.114 The United States national assembly was elected in April, 1963, by seven- ty-five delegates, assembled in Santa Fe, New Mexico, representing local Baha’i groups throughout the country. According to A. S. Petzoldt, Quincy, Illinois, who was elected the first chairman of the newly formed national assembly, Baha’is under the Guardianship were located in Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Costa Rica, the Canal Zone, France, England, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Africa, and in the Mauritius and Reunion islands.115 The attorney for the Baha’is under the Guardianship informed the American assembly on March 16, 1964, that the “Declaration of Trust and By-Laws of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of the United Stated of America under the Hereditary Guardianship” had been legally incorporated in New Mexico and its incorporation subsequently filed with the U. S. Department of State. The attorney further explained that the incorporation
States as members of the new corporation, whether or not they have declared allegiance to the principle of Guardianship. The new legal incorporation also embraced all of the properties held by all of the believers of the Baha’i Faith, whether or not some of the properties currently may be operated or under the control of certain Baha’i believers who have not declared their allegiance to the Guardianship principle.116 The Wilmette Property Lawsuit With their new legal incorporation embracing all Baha’i proper- ties, the Baha’is under the Guardianship proceeded to institute a legal suit in the Federal District Court in Chicago against the National Spiritual Assembly in Wilmette on August 5, 1964, for “breach of trust,” attempting to gain legal ownership of the Wilmette Baha’i temple property held by the “Sans Guardian Baha’is.”117 The Santa Fe Baha’is maintained that the Baha’is refusing to acknowledge the continuation of the guardianship were violating the Declaration and Trust under which they were incorporated, which declares the purposes of the trust to be to administer Baha’i affairs according to principles
‘Abdu’l-Baha and amplified and applied by Shoghi Effendi and his duly constituted successor and successors under the provisions of the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Baha.118 Unknown to the Santa Fe Baha’is was that the National Spiritual Assembly in Wilmette, after the election of the Universal House of Justice in 1963, had amended and copyrighted its Declaration of Trust in 1964, deleting references to the “successor and successors” after Shoghi Effendi (in Article II) and deleting reference to the “Guardian of the Cause” in Article IV and in Article IX of the By-Laws, making their affairs subject only to the Universal House of Justice.119
claim against the Baha’is under the Guardianship for trademark infringe- ment, mailing on January 27, 1965, a notice to the Commissioner of Patents, Washington, D.C., reporting the trademark infringement as entered in the counterclaim.
succeeded in getting an injunction against the Baha’is under the Guardian- ship on June 28, 1966. The injunction entered by .Judge Richard Austin in
sion, reads: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the counter-defendant, the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of the United States of America Under the Hereditary Guardianship, Inc., its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all per- sons in active concert or participation with them, including affiliated Local Spiritual Assemblies, groups, and individuals, or any of them, be and they are hereby enjoined from using in their activities the designations “National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of the United States of America under the Here- ditary Guardianship, Inc.,” “Baha’i News Bureau,” “Rebels Round Robin,” “Baha’i,” trademark representations of the Baha’i House of Worship, the Arabic design “The Greatest Name,” and any other designation which by colorable imitation or otherwise is likely to be mistaken for or confused with the counterclaimant’s name or marks as indicated above or is likely to create the erroneous impression that counter-defendant’s religious activities, pub- lications or doctrines originate with counterclaimant, and from otherwise competing unfairly with counterclaimant or infringing counterclaimant’s rights.120
motion for a new trial and appeal to a higher court. On August 8, 1966, they filed the motion for a new trial and a motion to amend the judg- ment. While the National Spiritual Assembly under the Guardianship and their lawyer, Donald S. Frey, made preparations for the new trial, an unexpected directive from Mason Remey ordered the National Spiritual Assembly under the Guardianship to withdraw from the proceedings “regard- less of the consequences.”121 Remey’s position was that the court case detracted from their teaching efforts, that they were dealing with a spiritual problem which could not be solved in a law court, and that the Baha’is were not to engage in such “aggressive” actions.122 Since the “Conclusions of Law” submitted by the Wilmette Baha’is states that the Wilmette National Spiritual Assembly did not presume to infringe on the right to religious liberty or to organize and worship according to the dictates of conscience, the Baha’is under the Hereditary Guardianship interpreted the ruling against them that they could continue their teaching and advertising activity, give talks on the Baha’i religion, and privately call themselves Baha’is but could not use the name “Baha’i” in their advertisements.123 The Wilmette Baha’is had lost their case in New York sState against the New History Society in attempting to restrict the use of the name “Baha’i” to their own organization. This time they won.
the National Spiritual Assembly in Santa Fe to be dissolved. The Baha’is under Mason Remey continued as best they could under the injunction to spread the Baha’i teachings while refraining from advertising themselves as Baha’is.124
messages to those accepting his guardianship. These were often printed in the Glad Tidings until the Chicago injunction. After the National Spiritual Assembly in Santa Fe was dissolved, Remey sent his messages to his followers in the United States through Charley O. Murphy, who reproduced the letters or portions of letters or announcements which were specified as for the believers at large. These messaged dealt with points of doctrine and announcement’s related to the affairs of the faith under the direction of Mason Remey. One of Remey’s earlier messages pertained to a non-Baha’i, English translation of Baha’u’llah’s Kitab-i-Aqdas. A surprising feature of the Baha’i faith is that, although Baha’u’llah’s Kitab-i-Aqdas is the most important of Baha’u’llah’s writings, the book to which all Baha’is must turn for the laws governing the present age, it has never yet been translated into English and published by Baha’is. A non-Baha’i translation by E. E. Elder with an introduction by William McElwee Miller, however, was pub- lished in 1961. Remey encouraged his followers to avail themselves of this work. Pointing out that it is not an “authorized” Baha’i publication and that its laws cannot yet be enforced on a community level, Remey held none- theless that it would be profitable for individual use.123 The Wilmette Baha’is find this translation unacceptable.
descent in the guardians “can be remedied” and brought “back again into the line of descent from Baha’u’llah … as soon as there may arise amongst those of this chosen descent one who will qualify.”126 In a statement issued August 9, 1964, Remey defined the infalli- bility of the guardianship. He held that the guardianship is endowed with infallibility but that “this does not seen that every act, word and deed of the Guardian remains inflexibly binding on the believers of the future generations.” Remey maintained that only the words of Baha’u’llah cannot be changed until a future manifestation. The interpretation of the Holy Word, however, may differ from time to time depending upon the interpretation of the Living Guar- dian alone for he alone has been authorized as the interpreter). If this were not so, then any believer might wish to hold to what a former Guardian established and conflict would arise. Therefore,
Faith gives to the Baha’i World as his interpretation.127 These words perhaps formed the basis for Mason Remey’s departure from the teachings of Shoghi Effendi. Remey began to criticize Shoghi Effendi’s administration. In a message, January, 1967, Remey declared that “Shoghi Effendi was all wrong in teaching that the future world govern- ment would be installed on Mt. Carmel,” asserted that “Shoghi Effendi was a sick and disorganized soul,” and spoke of the “violations of the Faith that were made unwittingly by Shoghi Effendi.”128
Baha’i religions are two separate and distinct religions” that have “very different and opposing objects,” contended that “Shoghi Effendi forced the Babi Faith upon the entire world of the Baha’i Community,” and held that “this was all wrong and is the cause of the contusion of the Baha’i people of today, and they don’t understand this!” Remey declared: “Shoghi Effendi built his Administration about the Babi Faith. He ought to have built it about the Baha’i Faith but he did not.”129 In 1968, Remey appointed the first five of an intended twenty-four elders who would together with the guardian “administer the Faith of Baha’u’llah,” finding support for the twenty-four elders in Revelation 4:10-11 and 11:16-17, and in a passage in ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s Some Answered Questions. Donald Harvey, to be mentioned subsequently, was appointed as the first elder and the “member at large” of the body. To the remark that Shoghi Effendi knew of no twenty-four elders, Remey replied that “Shoghi Effendi knew nothing” of the twenty-four elders of the Baha’i dispensation because “his administration was confined to the Babi Faith
the body of twenty-four elders. On May 19, 1969, Remey announced that English would be “the official language of the Baha’i Faith” and urged communities in each country of the world to begin teaching English to illiterates, allowing them to become world citizens at once.”131 On July 16, 1971. Remey indicated that Colo- rado Springs would be the best location for the Baha’i temple.132 Mason Remey in his 100th year, passed away in Florence, Italy, on February 4, 1974.
second guardian was the emergence in November, 1969, some four years and three months before Remey’s death, of a claimant to the third guardian- ship, who won the support of most of Remey’s followers. The circumstances of this development were as follows:
received from Remey a letter “in whose outer envelope was enclosed a smaller sealed envelope” on which were written these words:
in the Bernese Oberland. As I see things now it may have to do with the coming world catastrophe in or after 1963. You will know
1961.133
deposit box in a bank near his permanent residence in Switzerland. Then, on September 21, 1964, Mason Remey appointed Joel Marangella as president of the newly created second International Baha’i Council (an- nounced in Glad Tidings, October, 1964), an act of high importance for Remey’s followers, for Remey’s claim to the second guardianship rested on his appointment by Shoghi Effendi as president of the first International Baha’i Council.
land, where he felt that the time had come to open the letter which he had placed in the safety deposit box three years earlier. The handwrit- ten letter read: Washington, D.C., U.S.A. 5 December 1961 Dear Joel,
I appoint you to be the third Guardian of the Baha’i Faith according to the Will and Testament of the Master, Abdu’l- Baha.
of the Baha’i Faith134
addressed to him instead of to the believers and that it commissioned his to “tell” the Baha’i world that he was the third guardian. The question arose in his mind of when to make his announcement, and he says that he concluded that it would only be appropriate after the second guardian’s passing, although he says “an examination of the Will and Testament of Abdu’l-Baha does not disclose that this is a precondi- tion.”135 Marangella indicates further that when he visited Mason Remey in Florence, Italy, in the summer, 1965, Remey instructed him to announce the activation of the Baha’i Council of which Marangella was president. Marangella’s announcement appears in Glad Tidings, October, 1965, under the heading of “Council Assumes Task.”
(published in Glad Tidings, May, 1966), he wrote: “I am turning the affairs of the Faith over to you as the President of the second Baha’i International Council to handle this for me—you having the other members of the Council to assist you,” and further indicated in the letter, “from now on I will leave you free to conduct the affairs of the Faith, I making suggestions when necessary.”136 In a letter a portion of which is printed in Glad Tidings, October, 1966, Remey wrote: Joel Marangella will soon have a message for all Baha’is that I trust will put everyones [sic] mind at rest about who will be the 3rd Guardian of the Faith. I have devised a plan that will assure the people that there will be a 3rd Guardian but that no one will know who he is to be until the catastrophe has passed and with it the confusion of the days of tribulation. This will be about 29 years from now according to my reckon- ing.137
1967, made another appointment to the guardianship:
Harvey at my death to be my Successor the Third guardian of the Faith. (Signed) Mason Remey May 23rd 1967 Florence, Italy P.S. May the Spirit of El Abha ever protect this line of Spiritual descent from Abdul Baha the Center of the Covenant of El Baha. (Signed) C.M.R.138 Since Mason Ramey had not annulled his previous appointment, Marangella wrote a letter to Remey enclosing a photostatic copy of his appointment of Marangella in 1961 and seeking an explanation. Remey’s reply, Marangella says, “offered no explanation and served to confirm my worst fears that something was seriously wrong if Mason Remey had for- gotten, as was obviously the case, this all-important appointment.” Maran- gella, at this point, in “great commotion” of “heart and soul,” reasoned:
a rational explanation, it dawned on my consciousness that the rea- son for this, as well as the lamentable state of affairs in the Faith and the conflicting statements which were coming from Mason Remey lay in the fact that the mantle of Guardianship no longer reposed on the shoulders of Mason Remey nor had it done so since the autumn of 1964 when I had opened the letter addressed to me by Mason Remey tel- ling me to tell the Baha’i World that I was the third Guardian of the Baha’i Faith. As earlier explained, I had considered at the time that this was an announcement that I would only make after the pas- sing of Mason Remey. But as I have already pointed out Mason Remey had on two occasions provided me with the opportunity, however unbe- knownst to himself and unrecognized by me to take over the reins of the Faith (i.e., when the Council was activated in October 1965 and in February 1966). In some respects, my own failure to perceive my accession to the Guardianship parallels the experience of Mason Re- mey as it will be recalled that some three years elapsed (from 1957 to 1960) before he perceived that he had been the Guardian of the Faith since the passing of Shoghi Effendi.139
letter, containing the above quoted words, claiming the station of third guardian. Marangella, thus, holds that he had been third guardian since autumn, 1964, and apparently for Marangella and his followers, Mason Remey’s pronouncements after that data have no validity, thereby elimi- nating for them Remey’s attacks on Shoghi Effendi’s administration during the closing nine years of Remey’s long life. Marangella later wrote to his follows urging them “to not be critical of Mason Remey in any way,” referring to “the problems of a person who has reached his extremely advanced age,” and indicating that they are common to all very old people and happily he was not af- flicted until far past the usual age. At the time that he made his appointment of me as his successor (i.e. the second year after the issuance of his Proclamation) he was given the wisdom to rea- lize that a time would come when he was no longer able to function in the office of the Guardianship and hence couched his letter of appointment in the terms that he did.
with the necessary qualities to stand up like a rock against the greatest violation that the faith has ever known. Thus the con- tinuity of the Guardianship was preserved and for this the present generation of faithful Baha’is as well as succeeding generations down through the centuries of the Baha’i Dispensation owe him an incalculable and eternal debt of gratitude.140
Remey, himself, kept issuing his announcements and letters of instruction to those who continued to accept him as guardian.
to the third guardianship. Shortly after Marangella issued his procla- mation letter of November 12, 1969, a paper was circulated insisting that there could not be two living guardians at the same time. Marangella agreed. He was the guardian; Remey was no longer guardian. Remey’s manner of appointing him, Marangella reasoned, was a form of abdication of the office of guardian whenever Marangella should announce himself as guardian.141 Marangella had said previously in his proclamatory letter that
and apart from the individual who occupies this Office at a particular time. Down through the ages to come, different persons will sit upon the spiritual Throne of the Guardianship—a Throne upon which is focussed the light of the Holy Spirit. Only when the one who is the “chosen branch” of the Tree of the Covenant is seated thereon does he become irradiated with that eternal Light end is he enabled to discharge the sacred Trust with which he has been envested.142
indicates that the guardian holds this office for life. The will and testament, in referring to the Universal House of Justice, says that “the guardian of the Cause of God is its sacred head and the distin- guished member for life of that body.”143 The reasoning would be that to be the “sacred head” of the Universal House of Justice for life would necessitate being guardian for life, because only the guardian can be president of the Universal House of Justice. Remey also had written in his Proclamation that he expected the Baha’is in convention in Wilmette in 1960 “to follow me so long as I live for I am the Guardian of the Faith.”144 Mason Remey, also, in a letter to the city editor of the Des
as “the Guardian for life of the Baha’i (Orthodox) World Faith.” These statements were made by Remey during the time of his recognized guardians- ship. How, then, does Marangella meet these objections? One of the explanations why Shoghi Effendi never urged Mason Remey to activate the International Baha’i Council was that, had the Coun- cil been activated then Remey, as president of the embryonic Universal House of Justice, would have become guardian at that time. Marangella maintains, however, that “unlike Shoghi Effendi,” Mason Remey
head of that body and simultaneously passing on the mantle of guardianship and placing it upon my shoulders.145 In this case, then, the guardianship, according to Marangella, passed to him prior to Remey’s death.
appointment, is that the later appointment of a third guardian by Remey annuls Marangella’s previous appointment, since legally the last written will of a person is the one in force. Marangella’s position is that Remey’s later appointment of a third guardian was after the mantle of guardianship already had passed to him and the subsequent appointment, therefore, invalid along with Remey’s other enactments after ceasing to be guardian. Development of the Orthodox Baha’i Faith under Marangella On March 1, 1970, Joel Marangella announced the establishment with four initial members of the National Bureau of the Orthodox-Baha’i Faith in America, “pending the reestablishment of the orthodox Baha’i Administrative System under the hereditary Guardianship on the North American Continent.” The functions of the Bureau are to serve as a point of contact between the guardian and Baha’is in the United States and Canada who recognize the third guardianship; serve as provisional custodian of a national Baha’i fund; officially represent the Orthodox Baha’i faith in national contacts with non-Baha’is; maintain a member- ship roll of Orthodox Baha’is; and initiate a Baha’i library.146 Plans originally were to establish an office in New York City, where the Supreme Court had ruled in 1941 that the Wilmette Baha’is “have no right to monopoly on the name of a religion,”147 but in July, 1972, the Bureau was transferred to New Mexico and later incorporated under the laws of the state.
when some of its members, along with some others, chose to follow Rex King, who claimed to be a “Regent for the Cause of Baha’u’llah.” King was one of the members of the first elected National Spiritual Assembly under the Hereditary Guardianship in 1963. After Joel Marangella claimed the third guardianship, King accepted him and was appointed by Marangella as president of the National Teaching Institute of the Orthodox Baha’i Faith in the United States. King, however, issued on January 15, 1973, a sixteen-page proclamation asserting his “Regency of the Cause.” His claim was based on a mystical experience and Marangella’s conferring upon him of the presidency of the National Teaching Institute. In a subsequent paper, King denied that Marangella was or ever had been guardian of the Baha’i faith, although he held that Marangella had made appointments and given titles to him through the Holy Spirit. Marangella announced on August 12, 1973, the establishing of the European Bureau of the Orthodox Baha’i Faith with functions paralleling the U.S. Bureau except that to the European Bureau was given an additional duly of preparing, editing, and publishing a Baha’i magazine. The “Winter 1973/74” issue of Herald of the Covenant was the first issue of this maga- zine. The European Bureau has since been inactivated, but plans are to continue publication of the magazine. Marangella augmented the role of the U.S. National Bureau on January 15, 1974, to include assisting Baha’is in planning, organi- zing, and conducting meetings, seminars, discussion panels, firesides, and other meetings; providing publications and teaching materials for local teaching activities and conducting regional and national publi- city campaigns for promoting the Orthodox Baha’i Faith and preparing and utilizing varied publicity media and materials. Unlike the National Spiritual Assembly, the National Bureau is an appointed, not elected, body and has no administrative or legis- lative powers. It is temporary and provisional until the Baha’i admini- strative order under the guardianship can be reestablished in the United States.148
in nine points the beliefs of the Orthodox Baha’is. They concern belief in (1) the Bab, (2) Baha’u’llah, (3) Baha’u’llah’s appointment of ‘Abdu’l- Baha as his successor, (4) ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s will and testament as “supple- mentary to the Most Holy Book revealed by Baha’u’llah (the Kitab-i-Aqdas)” and constituting “a part of the explicit Holy Text, inviolate and never to be abrogated or altered in any way during the Dispensation of Baha’u- ’llah,” (5) the will and testament’s establishing of the guardianship and the Universal House of Justice, both under the protection and guidance of Baha’u’llah, (6) the sole authority of the guardian to appoint his successor, either his “first born son” or “another individual,” preserving “an unbroken chain of guardians each appointed by his predecessor in office throughout the duration of the Dispensation of Baha’u’llah,” (7) Shoghi Effendi’s appointment of Charles Mason Remey, (8) Mason Remey’s appoint- ment of Joel B. Marangella, (9) and a closing statement affirming that “avowed Baha’is who espouse views and doctrines at variance with the above statement are not orthodox Baha’is and have placed themselves outside the true Faith.”149 NOTES CHAPTER VII 1 For accounts of Shoghi Effendi’s passing, see Ruhiyyih Rabbani, The Priceless Pearl (London: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1969), pp. 446-51, and The Baha’i World: An International Record, Vol. XIII (Haifa, Israel: Universal House of Justice, 1970), pp. 207-25. The latter is a reprint- ing of Amatu’l-Baha Ruhiyyih Khanum, in collaboration with John Ferraby, The Passing of Shoghi Effendi (London: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1958). 2 Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publish- ing Trust, 1957), p. 214. 3 The Baha’i World, XIII, 342. 4 ibid., p. 343. 5 Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Baha (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1944), p. 12 (hereinafter referred to as Will and Tes-
6 The Baha’i World, XIII, 346. 7 ibid., p. 343. 8 ibid., pp. 350-51. 9 ibid., p. 351. 10 ibid., pp. 352-53. The twelve-day Baha’i feast of Ridvan, commemorating Baha’u’llah’s declaration, begins on April 21. The Baha’i national convention is held annually at this time. 11 ibid., pp. 254-55. 12 ibid., p. 353. 13 ibid., p. 346. 14 ibid., p. 361. 15 ibid., pp. 362-63.
National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of Canada, 1965), p. 63. 17 ibid., p. 661 see also p. 65. 18 As Shoghi Effendi had designated them in his last message to the Baha’i world before his death (Shoghi Effendi, Messages to the Baha’i
127).
19 Universal House of Justice, Wellspring of Guidance: Messages 1963-1968 (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1969), p. 11. 20 ibid., p. 48. 21 ibid., p. 81. 22 ibid., p. 82. 23 Will and Testament, p. 12. 24 Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha’u’llah (rev. ed.; Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1955), p. 148. 25 ibid.
26 ibid., p. 150. 27 ibid., p. 8. 28 George Townshend, Christ and Baha’u’llah (London: George Ronald, 1963), p. 100. 29 ibid., pp. 100-101. 30 Marzieh Gail, “Will and Testament,” World Order, VI (April, 1940), 21-22. 31 Ruhiyyih Khanum, Twenty-Five Years of the Guardianship (Wil- mette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Committee, 1948), p. 19. 32 ibid., p. 23. 33 See Mason Remey’s “Forward” in May Maxwell, An Early Pilgri-
as Proclamation). 34 Charles Mason Remey, The Bahai Movement: A Series of Nineteen Papers upon the Bahai Movement (Washington, D.C.: Press of J. D. Milans & Sons, 1912), pp. 103-10. 35 Charles Mason Remey, “Through Warring Countries to the Mountain of God: An Account of Some of the Experiences of Two American Bahais in France, England, Germany, and Other Countries, on Their Way to Visit Ab- dul Baha in the Holy Land, in the Year 1914” (Honolulu, Hawaii: unpub- lished typewritten manuscript deposited in selected libraries, 1915). Available through University Microfilms, a Xerox Company, Ana Arbor, Michigan. 36 “English Translation of Tablets Revealed by the Center of the Covenant, Abdul-Baha to C.M.R.” (Newport, R.I.: n.p., 1924). 37 Charles Mason Remey, “Journal Diary of a Baha’i Teacher in Latin America, 1946-1947,” Vols. I-III (Washington, D.C.: n.p., 1949); Charles Mason Remey, “Journal Diary of Baha’i Travels in Europe, 1947” (Washington, D.C.: n.p., 1949); Charles Mason Remey, “Journal-diary of European Baha’i Travels, April-November, 1949,” Vols. I-III (Washington, D.C.: n.p., 1949; Charles Mason Remey, “A Teacher of the Baha’i Faith in South America, 1945-1946,” Vols. I-III (Washington, D.C.: n.p., 1949); Charles Mason Remey, Observations of a Bahai Traveller, 1908 (Washington, D.C.: Carnahan Press, 1909). 38 Charles Mason Remey, The Bahai Revelation and Reconstruction (Chicago, Ill.: Distributed by Bahai Publishing Society, 1919); Charles Mason Remey, The Peace of the world (Chicago, Ill.: Distributed by Bahai Publishing Society, 1919); Charles Mason Remey, The New Day (Chi- cago, Ill.: Distributed by Bahai Publishing Society, 1919); Charles Mason Remey, Constructive Principles of the Bahai Movement (Chicago, Ill.: Bahai Publishing Society, 1917); Charles Mason Remey, A Series of Twelve
Baha’i Publishing Committee, 1925); Charles Mason Remey, The Universal Consciousness of the Bahai Religion (New York: Baha’i Publishing Commit- tee, 1925). 39 Charles Mason Remey, A Statement by the Second Guardian of
the Hereditary Guardianship, n.d.), p. 1 (hereinafter referred to as Statement). 40 The Baha’i World, XIII, p. 342. 41 Remey, Statement, p. 3. 42 “An Appeal to the Hands of the Faith in the Holy Lands: Made Strictly in Private to These Friends Residing in the Holy Land by Mason
Baha’i Faith in the Year 117 of the Baha’i Era” (unpublished typewritten letter, 1960); “Another Appeal to the Hands of the Baha’i Faith” A Pri- vate and Secret Document to Be Read Only by the Hands of the Faith” (un- published typewritten letters, 1960); A Last Appeal to the Hands of the
form, with the two other appeals, may be found in New York Public Library with other of Remey’s letters and documents under the heading “Baha’i Religious Faith.” This material also is available in microfilm at Baylor University, Waco, Texas. Quotations from the Last Appeal in this chap- ter are from the published booklet. 43 Charles Mason Remey, “An Appeal to the Hands of the Faith in the Holy Land,” (unpublished typewritten letter, 1960), mentioned in previous footnote. 44 The “Statement” included in the back of the printed edition of the Last Appeal was written, as it clearly indicates, after Remey’s
“Last Appeal.” 45 Remey, Last Appeal, pp. 13, 23, 27. 46 ibid., p. 39. 47 ibid., p. 26. 48 ibid., p. 27. 49 ibid., p. 8. 50 ibid., pp. 33-34, 36. 51 ibid., p. 37. 52 ibid., p. 44. 53 ibid., p. 45. 54 ibid., p. 36. Ahmad Sohrab accepted the authenticity of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s will and testament and the will’s appointment of Shoghi Effendi as guardian but he opposed what he considered Shoghi Effendi’s dictatorial control over the faith, which he felt was a misuse of the authority of the guardian in the will. 55 ibid., p. 10. 56 ibid., p. 18. 57 ibid., pp. 18, 20. 58 ibid., p. 20. 59 ibid., 35. 60 ibid., pp. 11, 14, 15, 17, 21, etc. 61 Shoghi Effendi, Messages to the Baha’i World: 1950-1957 (rev. ed.; Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1971), p. 127. 62 Remey, Last Appeal, p. 25. 63 ibid., p. 42. 64 ibid., p. 32. 65 ibid., p. 42. 66 Universal House of Justice, Wellspring of Guidance, p. 45. 67 ibid.
68 Remey, Last Appeal, p. 32. 69 ibid., p. 30. 70 ibid., p. 33. 71 ibid., p. 38. 72 ibid., p. 41. 73 ibid., p. 47. 74 ibid., p. 48. 75 Remey, Statement, p. 5. An “Announcement to the Hands of the Faith from Mason Remey the Second Guardian of the Faith of his Appoint- ment of Guardianship by the First Guardian of the Faith” bears the date December, 1959. His announcement of his guardianship was sent to the Hands evidently between his Last Appeal and his Proclamation, issued at Ridvan, 117 (1960). A “Notification of the Appointment of Mason Remey, Guardian of the Baha’i Faith by the late Guardian of the Faith, His Eminence Shoghi Effendi Rabbani Sent to the Government of Israel through the President of Israel and the Ministry of Religious Affairs, Jerusalem, Israel” is dated May 15, 1960. These items may be found in “Baha’i Religious Faith,” mentioned above in footnote 42. 76 Remey, Proclamation, pp. C-D. Remey does not mean the pro- gram for 1963 as initiated by Shoghi Effendi but the program of the hands for electing the Universal House of Justice. 77 ibid., p. E. 78 Mason Remey, II Encyclical Letter to the Baha’i World (Washing- ton, D.C., n.p., n.d.), p. 1. 79 ibid. 80 ibid., p. 2. 81 ibid., p. 4. 82 ibid.
83 Mason Remey, III Encyclical Letter to the Baha’i World (Wash- ington, D.C., n.p., n.d.), p. 4. 84 ibid., p. 9. 85 Will and Testament, p. 12. 86 Universal House of Justice, Wellspring of Guidance, p. 82. 87 Remey, Last Appeal, p. 10. 88 Edward G. Browne, comp., Materials for the Study of the Babi
89 Letter from Mason Remey to Dr. Jur. Udo Schaefer, June 1, 1960. This letter may be found in “Baha’i Religious Faith” (see above, foot- note 42). 90 Baha’i World Faith: Selected Writings of Baha’u’llah and ‘Abdu’l-Baha (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1956), pp. 437- 38, referred to in Charles H. Gaines, “The Guardianship and Administra- tion,” mimeographed manuscript, 1960, p. 24. 91 Will and Testament, p. 12. 92 Mirza Ahmad Sohrab, The Will and Testament of Abdul Baha: An Analysis (New York: Published by Universal Publishing Co. for the New History Foundation, 1944), p. 64. 93 Universal House of Justice, Wellspring of Guidance, p. 82. 94 Shoghi Effendi, fs, February, 1955, p. 1, cited by Gaines, “The Guardianship and Administration,” p. 8.
96 Universal House of Justice, Wellspring of Guidance, p. 11. 97 ibid., p. 87. 98 ibid., pp. 48-49. 99 ibid., p. 82. 100 ibid., pp. 83-84. 101 ibid., pp. 86-87. 102 Will and Testament, p. 12. 103 Universal House of Justice, Wellspring of Guidance, p. 41. 104 ibid., pp. 139-44. 105 ibid., p. 139. Words in parentheses are in the text. 106 Hapgood is author of Earth’s Shifting Crust (Pantheon Press), bringing together views of scientists over the previous seventy-five years. A review appears in Saturday Review (June 7, 1958), cited in Charles Mason Remey, The Great Global Catastrophe (Santa Fe, N.M.: Baha’is of Santa Fe under the Hereditary Guardianship, n.d.), p. 5. 107 Remey, The Great Global Catastrophe, p. 1. Baha’is arrived at this date, according to E. A. Dime, because the Muslim year 1335 A.H. corresponds to 1917 A.D. According to Dime, the Baha’is believed that the millennium would occur before the end of 1917 (“Is the Millennium Upon Us?” The Forum, LVIII August, 1917, pp. 179-80). 108 Remey, The Great Global Catastrophe, pp. 1-2. 109 Circulated letter from Mason Remey, July 16, 1961, p. 1. 110 ibid. 111 Remey, The Great Global Catastrophe, p. 1n. 112 Letter from Mason Remey to the National Spiritual Assembly, Wilmette, June 19, 1962. 113 “Preliminary Steps toward the Election of the New N. S. A.’s,” announcement from Mason Remey, November 30, 1962. 114 Glad Tidings, V (June, 1964), 4. 115 “Petzoldt Chairman of New Group of Baha’is,” Herald-Whig (Quincy, Illinois), May 5, 1963, p. 11. 116 Glad Tidings, V (May, 1964), 3. The registration of the incorporation shows the date of May 7, 1964 (Glad Tidings, V [August, 1964], 1). 117 “Legal Suit Instituted,” Glad Tidings, V (November, 1964), 3. 118 The Baha’i World, XIII, 548. 119 “From the National Spiritual Assembly,” Glad Tidings, V (February, 1965), 3. 120 The National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of the United States of America under the Hereditary Guardianship, Inc. v. The National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of the United States of America, Inc., 64 C 1878 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, 1964-1966). 121 “NSA Accepts Injunction Terms,” Glad Tidings, VII (October, 1966), 2. 122 ibid. 123 ibid., p. 3. 124 Martin T. Fisher, Washington, D.C., inquired into the trade- mark copyright in connection with the New History Society case and noted in his report, December 8, 1939, that the trademark was registered under the 1905 Act as a “non-descriptive” mark, whereas it is a descriptive word, referring to a religion, and that the copyright pertains only to magazines and printed matter (Mirza Ahmad Sohrab, Broken Silence: the Story of Today’s Struggle for Religious Freedom [New York: Published by Universal Publishing Co. for the New History Foundation, 1942], pp. 209-10.) 125 “From the Guardian,” Glad Tidings, IV (December, 1963), 1. The translation of the Kitab-i-Aqdas also may be found in an appendix in William McElwee Miller’s The Baha’i Faith: Its History and Teachings (South Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library, 1974). 126 Glad Tidings, V (August, 1964), 2. 127 “Statement by the Guardian on the Infallibility of the Guar- dianship of the Baha’i Faith,” issued from Mason Remey, August 9, 1964. 128 Letter from Mason Remey to “Friends,” January, 1967. 129 Letter from Mason Remey to the Believers, January 28, 1968. 130 ibid. and Letter from Mason Remey to Esther Sego, November 13, 1967. The passage in ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s Some Answered Questions (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1964) is on p. 67. 131 Letter from Mason Remey to “Friends,” May 19, 1969. 132 Letter from Mason Remey to Charley O. Murphy, July 16, 1971. 133 Joel Marangella’s proclamatory letter to the faithful sup- porters of the Covenant of Baha’u’llah throughout the world,” November 12, 1969, with attached photocopies of letter and envelope from Mason Remey to Joel Marangella, December 5, 1961. 134 ibid. 135 Joel Marangella’s proclamatory letter, November 12, 1969, p. 3. 136 ibid., p. 4. 137 “Guidance from the Guardian,” Glad Tidings, VII (October, 1966), p. 1. This would place the date of the great catastrophe and Remey’s expectation of when the third guardian would announce himself in about 1995, which seems to contradict his statement that Marangella “‘will soon have a message for all Baha’is.” Both here and on the enve- lope appointing Marangella as third Guardian, Remey conceived of a pos- sible relationship between Marangella’s announcement and the great catas- trophe, although the expected time of the catastrophe is different. 138 Marangella refers in his proclamatory letter (p. 5) to an announcement in August, 1967, of the appointment of a third guardian. Presumably, this is a later announcement of the same appointment. Donald Harvey, as previously indicated, was the first elder of Remey’s projected twenty-four elders. 139 Marangella’s proclamatory letter, November 12, 1969, p. 5. Marangella, born September 22, 1918, spent much of his youth in the summers at Green Acre Baha’i Summer School, Eliot, Maine, and declared his intention at age fifteen of being a Baha’i and was enrolled as an adult believer on reaching twenty-one. In 1950, he journeyed to Europe in response to Shoghi Effendi’s call for Baha’i pioneers to spread the faith in Europe. He remained in France for eighteen rears, except for four months in the United States in 1954, and was serving as chairman of the first Baha’i National Spiritual Assembly in France and was also a member of the Auxiliary Board of the Baha’is of the Cause in Europe for Teaching when Mason Remey proclaimed himself as second guardian. The majority of the National Spiritual Assembly, including Marangella, acep- ted Remy as guardian. The National Spiritual Assembly in France, in- cidentally, was the only NSA with a majority of its member’s accepting Remey (the above biographical information was provided by Joel Marangella, upon request, in a letter to the author, June 28, 1970).
1970.
141 ibid. 142 Marangella, Proclamatory letter, p. 6. 143 Will and Testament, p. 14. Italics mine. 144 Remey, Proclamation, p. E. Italics mine. 145 “A Statement to the Believers,” issued by Joel Marangella in the summer, 1973. 146 Announcement from Joel Marangella to the Faithful Champions of the Covenant of Baha’u’llah and Supporters of the Third Guardian of the Baha’i Faith in America,” March 1, 1970. 147 See above, p. 315. 148 Much of the information on the National Bureau was provided to the author by the National Bureau of the Orthodox Baha’i Faith of the United States and Canada through its secretary, Franklin D. Schlatter. 149 Joel B. Marangella, “Statement of Beliefs of the Orthodox Baha’is under the Living Guardianship,” Herald of the Covenant, I (Winter 1973/74), 19-20. Yüklə 2,06 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|