Uncategorized

Power of the Covenant

Posted on May 13, 2013. Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: |

The Plan of God is Guided by the Living Guardian through the Power of the Covenant

Our guidance as to the needs of the time and the best way to contribute to the Plan come through the Center of the Covenant. At the time of His passing, Bahá’u’lláh appointed `Abdu’l-Bahá as the Center of the Covenant and the Authorized Interpreter of His Writings. The existence of a clear Center of the Covenant to whom all Bahá’ís turn is one of the unique, distinguishing features of the Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh.

“As to the most great characteristic of the revelation of Bahá’u’lláh — a specific teaching not given by any of the Prophets of the past — it is the ordination and appointment of the Center of the Covenant. By this appointment and provision He has safeguarded and protected the religion of God against differences and schisms, making it impossible for any one to create a new sect or faction of belief. To insure unity and agreement He has entered into a Covenant with all the people of the world including the Interpreter and Explainer of His teachings, so that no one may interpret or explain the religion of God according to his own view or opinion and thus create a sect founded upon his individual understanding of the Divine words. The Book of the Covenant or Testament of Bahá’u’lláh is the means of preventing such a possibility, for whosoever shall speak from the authority of himself alone shall be degraded. Be ye informed and cognizant of this.”

— `Abdu’l-Bahá, “Promulgation of Universal Peace” p. 455-456 —

Following the passing of `Abdu’l-Bahá, the First Guardian, Shoghi Effendi, became the authorized Interpreter of Bahá’u’lláh’s Writings.

“He is the Interpreter of the Word of God,” `Abdu’l-Bahá, referring to the functions of the Guardian of the Faith, asserts…”The mighty stronghold,” He further explains, “shall remain impregnable and safe through obedience to him who is the Guardian of the Cause of God.”

– `Abdu’l-Bahá, “Will and Testament of `Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 11

During the thirty-six years of his Guardianship, Shoghi Effendi fixed the pattern and laid the foundations of the Administrative Order of Bahá’u’lláh, by setting in motion the implementation of the Divine Plan of `Abdu’l-Bahá for the spread of the Faith throughout the world.

One element of the Administrative Order of Bahá’u’lláh that the First Guardian implemented was to establish the Universal House of Justice, an Institution which Bahá’u’lláh described in the Kitab-iAqdas. Shoghi Effendi established the EMBRYONIC UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE in the form of the First International Baha’i Council, with Mason Remey as its President. The institution of the Universal House of Justice must be headed by a living Guardian, since the UHJ does not have the right of interpretation of the Holy Writings without a living Guardian at its head.

“It should be stated, at the very outset, in clear and unambiguous language, that these twin institutions of the Administrative Order of Bahá’u’lláh should be regarded as divine in origin, essential in their functions and complementary in their aim and purpose. Their common, their fundamental object is to insure the continuity of that divinely-appointed authority which flows from the Source of our Faith, to safeguard the unity of its followers and to maintain the integrity and flexibility of its teachings.”

– Shoghi Effendi, “The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh,” p. 148

At this time, the Guardian of the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh is Joel B. Marangella. It is to him that the Bahá’ís turn for the plans, instructions, and guidance needed to carry out their role in carrying forward the Plan of God.

“If a small number of people gather lovingly together, with absolute purity and sanctity, with their hearts free of the world, experiencing the emotions of the Kingdom and the powerful magnetic forces of the Divine, and being at one in their happy fellowship, that gathering will exert its influence over all the earth. The nature of that band of people, the words they speak, the deeds they do, will unleash the bestowals of Heaven, and provide a foretaste of eternal bliss. The hosts of the Company on high will defend them, and the angels of the Abhá Paradise, in continuous succession, will come down to their aid.”

–“Selections from the Writings of `Abdu’l-Bahá,” p. 81

The Appointment of a New Contingent of Hands of the Cause of God

I take this joyous occasion to congratulate the appointment of a new contingent of Hands of the Cause: Jean Olsen, Chad Olsen, Ian Roebuck, Barbara Walsh, Paul Henderson, Mark Marangella, and Rajendra Upadhyaye.

With this Historic Appointment of new Hands of the Cause by our beloved Third Guardian, the plan of God has inched further towards its Goal. The coming generations will witness the successful completion of the Divine Plan through a living Guardian.

Y.H Taylor

30-4-13

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

“EXCOMMUNICATION” can only be done by a Living Guardian

Posted on March 8, 2013. Filed under: Uncategorized |

Amongst the various duties which a Guardian is able to exercise is the Excommunicating a Bahá’í. The Writings of the First Guardian Shoghi Effendi are a clear guidance where he has categorically said that EXCOMMUNICATION can be exercised only by a Guardian.

In another communication again the First Guardian Beloved Shoghi Effendi emphasis that even depriving the Bahá’í of his VOTING RIGHTS they have to be utmost careful.

In another communication again the First Guardian Beloved Shoghi Effendi has prohibited the National Assemblies that they do not have the right to introduce more rules and regulations.

Excommunication is a spiritual thing and up until now the Guardian has always been the one who exerted this power, and he feels for the present he must continue to be. Only actual enemies of the Cause are excommunicated. On the other hand, those who conspicuously disgrace the Faith or refuse to abide by its laws can be deprived, as a punishment, of their voting rights; this in itself is a severe action, and he therefore always urges all National Assemblies (who can take such action) to first warn and repeatedly warn the evil-doer before taking the step of depriving him of his voting rights.”
(8 May 1948, to a National Spiritual Assembly)

1-There are two things which he wishes to impress upon you. The first is that depriving

People of their voting rights is the heaviest sanction which can be imposed at the present time (with the exception of excommunication, which is a right the Guardian has never permitted anyone else to exercise). Therefore, the greatest care should be exerted to try and remedy a situation before depriving anybody of their voting rights, and the action itself should only be taken if absolutely necessary.

2-The other point is that the Guardian is very anxious that no more rules and regulations

Should be introduced by any National Spiritual Assemblies. He has continually impressed this upon the American, the British and other National Bodies. The spirit of the Cause will be stifled, the initiative of the friends killed, and the teaching work come to a standstill if the friends are continually hemmed in by instructions. In view of this, he has instructed the National Bodies to deal with each case as it arises.
(22 December 1956, to a National Spiritual Assembly) [

As regards the need to warn an individual before his voting rights are removed, the basic Principle is expressed in the following passage written on behalf of the Guardian:

…before anyone is deprived of their voting rights, they should be consulted with and lovingly admonished at first, given repeated warnings if they do not mend their immoral ways, or whatever other extremely serious misdemeanor they are committing, and finally, after these repeated warnings, be deprived of their voting rights.

The bogus house has trampled all the Rights of the Guardian because it has abandoned the concept of continuation of Guardianship and in doing so they have broken all the Instructions, orders, Advices given by Our First Guardian Shoghi Effendi and therefore are not eligible to be called as Followers of Bahá’u’lláh.

Therefore the True followers of Bahá’u’lláh appeal to the followers of the bogus house that they should severe all their relationship/ties with this faulty organization and join us in establishing the New World Order of Bahá’u’lláh.

Hand of Cause
Y.H. Taylor
(On Behalf of Orthodox Bahá’í)
6-3-2013

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

COVENANT IN COURT: Appeals Court rules in favor of Orthodox Bahá’ís

Posted on October 2, 2012. Filed under: Uncategorized |

The Court of Appeals for the United States Seventh Circuit issued its ruling on November 23, 2010, in the appeal brought by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States (“Wilmette NSA”).  The Wilmette NSA brought the appeal after losing to the Orthodox Bahá’ís in the trial court on the NSA’s motion to find the OBF in contempt for allegedly violating the 1966 Judgment entered against the Remey NSA.  The trial court found, and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, that the OBF was not legally identified with the Remey NSA and therefore the OBF was not bound by the 1966 Judgment.  In effect, the OBF may continue to use the sacred symbols and names of their faith, including the word “Bahá’í” unless and until a court decides otherwise.

For more information: http://www.truebahai.com/court_case.html

Here is a breaking news article:

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/11/judge-bahai-believers-can-call-themselves-bahai.html

[Updated 18 May 2009]: The action by the NSA finally gets the attention of the press.  Click here for information about the Chicago Tribune’s article about the action pending in the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, Illinois.  The appeal was brought by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States (NSA), located in Wilmette, Illinois, after it lost its contempt motion against members of the Orthodox Bahá’í Faith

[Revised 28 February 2009] The parties are awaiting the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, Illinois in the appeal brought by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States (NSA), located in Wilmette, Illinois, after it lost its contempt motion against members of the Orthodox Bahá’í Faith and the Bahá’ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant, which are two separate and distinct entities.

The NSA had called upon the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division to hold in contempt members of both minority Bahá’í organizations who, the NSA claimed, were in violation of an injunction its predecessor obtained some 40 years ago against a rival Bahá’í body (the NSA loyal to Mason Remey).

In legal documents provided to the court on December 6, 2006, the NSA claimed that members of the current minority Bahá’í groups, although not parties to the case brought against the NSA loyal to Mason Remey, nevertheless are bound by the 1966 Judgment.  While not providing any specifics with regard to how the minority bodies have harmed the majority body, the NSA contended that the websites (including this one) of the smaller organizations were doing irreparable damage to the NSA.

The basic contention of the NSA was that the members of the minority groups were violating the NSA’s alleged trademarks on the name “Bahá’í” and the religious symbol of the “Greatest Name”, and it sought from the court a ruling which would prohibit the minority members from using the alleged trademarks to the detriment of the NSA.

The NSA sought to restrain both those individuals who at one time were even remotely associated with the enjoined rival Bahá’í body and any ‘nonparty’ members who have since developed different Bahá’í organizations.

Those members of the minority group who call themselves  Orthodox Bahá’ís, to distinguish themselves from the members of the majority organization, stated that the trademark by the Wilmette NSA on the “Greatest Name” is the equivalent of a Christian denomination trademarking the Cross and then saying that no other Christian congregation can use that symbol in their activities or in their contacts with others.

Additionally, Orthodox Bahá’ís maintain that the name “Bahá’í” is in the public domain and cannot be the exclusive property of one organization. They say that like the name “Christian” and “Muhammadan”, which refer to followers of Christ and Muhammad respectively, the name “Bahá’í” refers to a follower of Bahá’u’lláh, who all Bahá’ís acknowledge as the latest Prophet from God.

For some 35 years the Orthodox Bahá’ís have been employing the name “Bahá’í” in their newspaper and magazine publicity and in the telephone Yellow Pages, and during that time the NSA has made no move to implement the provisions of the injunction that the majority organization is now using to seek contempt citations against members of the minority groups. Should the NSA be successful in its efforts to curtail their activities, Orthodox Bahá’ís contend that, for them, the First Amendment of the Constitution is no longer valid.

The NSA on 23 May 2008 filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Chicago Trial January 7, 2008 005 Seventh Circuit of a ruling that the Orthodox Bahá’ís were not in contempt of a injunction entered in 1966 against the NSA loyal to Mason Remey.”[T]he chain of successorship lacks a link,” wrote the Honorable Amy J. St Eve, United States District Court Judge,in her Judgment in favor of the Orthodox Bahá’í Faith and the Bahá’í Publishers Under the Provisions of the Covenant. The Court ruled on 23 April 2008 after holding an evidentiary hearing on 7 January 2008 in Chicago, Illinois on the contempt motion brought by the NSA. In her decision, the Court stated that: “the vast weight of the record (including credible testimony) reflects that there was a significant doctrinal rift on a critical tenet of each group’s faith, and that the PNBC’s membership varied materially from that of the NSA-UHG. The record further reflects a demonstrable lack of intent to violate the injunction, and that the PNBC was not created to avoid the effect of the injunction. Simply put, there is no substantial continuity between the NSA-UHG and the PNBC, and, as a result, Mr. Schlatter, Mr. Marangella, and the PNBC have not violated the injunction.”

The appellate case had been fully briefed when the parties argued in Chicago Illinois on 20 February 2009 before a panel of Judges of the Court of Appeals: the Honorable Daniel A. Manion, the Honorable William J. Bauer, and the Honorable Diane S. Sykes.

Appearing on behalf of the Orthodox Bahá’ís was James McClymonds, a New York attorney who is the grandson of A.S. Petzoldt, the chairman of the NSA under the Hereditary Guardianship (under Mason Remey) and whose deposition was taken by the NSA in the original case.  James was a small child when his grandfather expressed the wish that someone would one day come forward to overturn the outrageous judgment that the Wilmette NSA had obtained against Remey’s NSA.

The appellate briefs and a recording of the oral argument held on 20 February 2009 are available on the web site of the Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit in Chicago Illinois:

Appellate Briefs: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/briefs.htm  Enter the Year = “08” and the Case Number = “2306”  Then click “List Cases”, then click the Case Number for a listing of the briefs in PDF format.

COURT CASE

The oral arguments of the Wilmette NSA’s appeal of Judge St. Eve’s decision favoring the Orthodox Baha’is was held on 20 February 2009 in Chicago Illinois.

Here is a transcript of part of the exchange between Mr. Handelman,the attorney for the NSA, and a couple of the Judges of the Court of Appeals. No matter how hard he tried to obfuscate the outrageous position of the NSA, the Judges carefully questioned him and exposed the oppressive and fascist nature of the NSA’s position, and it is here for all the world to see. [Incidentally, Judge Bauer below persistently questions Mr. Handelman on how the 1966 injunction was entered and Mr. Handelman evades the fundamental truth that only the NSA appeared at the “hearing” and that the Remey organization did not
appear and put on evidence (for some unknown reason). Mr. Handelman later admitted that only the NSA appeared which means the Injunction was effectively entered by “default”]

Here is part of the oral argument.

 Handelman, for Defendant-Appellant National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of the United States: The principle we are here advancing today has been adopted by other courts of appeals and that is that a– while the general rule is that a nonparty cannot be
bound by an injunction issued in a case in which it wasn’t named as a party, there are — there is an important exception to that general rule and that is a nonparty is bound by an
injunction if he is legally identified with the defendant corporation…

Judge William J. Bauer: Do you know of any case involving that particular rule that you enunciated to us in a civil rights case?

Handelman: Your honor, there are a couple of cases on point, the Federal Circuit in Additive Controls addressed this question of what do you do in applying an injunction when the corporate defendant has been dissolved.

Judge Bauer: That had to do with a patent infringement case?

Handelman: That is correct.

Judge Bauer: Other than a patent infringement case, do you have anything besides– civil rights cases that involve that theory that you just enunciated?

Handelman: The two cases we rely on– one is a patent infringement case Additive Controls. The other one is a trademark infringement case

Judge Bauer: Also from the Circuit?

Handelman: That is from the First Circuit

Judge Bauer: The First Circuit?

Handelman: Correct. Both of these cases draw on, first of all, the fact that Rule 65d codified the common law in this regard and so Justice Jackson in the Regal Knitwear case summarized Rule 65d: “is derived from the common law doctrine that a decree of injunction not only binds the parties defendant but also those identified with them
in interest.”

Judge Bauer: Let me intrude myself again. Was the original injunction a consent decree or was it a fought out battle?

Handelman: No the scenario leading to the injunction, the…

Judge Bauer: No, all I ask is a very simple question. Did Judge Austin formulate this decree himself or was it a consent decree?

Handelman: It was not a consent decree.

Judge Bauer: OK

Handelman: There were findings of fact and conclusions of law…

Judge Bauer: Based on a contested argument before, and presentation of evidence before Judge Austin?

Handelman: The… my understanding is that the NSA…

Judge Bauer: See you weren’t around in those days. I was.

Handelman: But your Honor Judge Austin.. Bare in mind this was the counterclaim, the original was, was against the NSA. The trademark infringement claim was brought by way of a counterclaim. So they started it. We responded and there was a findings of fact and conclusions of law entered by Judge Aspen.

Judge Bauer: After a hearing?

Handelman: I do not know if there was testimony at the hearing. I do not believe there was testimony given at the hearing by both sides but Judge Austin…

Judge Bauer: What was the predicate for the decision? Stipulation of facts?

Handelman: No, there was no stipulation, the NSA…

Judge Bauer: Then how did he arrive at a decree at all?

Handelman: The uh, I believe, the NSA submitted, appeared at the hearing and presented Judge Austin. I don’t know if there was live testimony at the hearing or not but it presented evidence on which the findings and conclusions were based.

Judge Bauer: What evidence did they and how did they present it?

Handelman: Well, for example, the deposition of the chairman of the UHG was taken and submitted to the Court, so we had the deposition…

Judge Bauer: Accepted by both sides as factually true?

Handelman: The testimony was sworn deposition testimony of the Chairman

Judge Bauer: There is sworn testimony on each side of the case normally but I want to know, how did Judge Austin arrive at the conclusion if there was no presentation of live witnesses?

Handelman: Um

Judge Bauer: Was it a stipulation of facts? In which case..

Handelman: No I do not believe it was a stipulation, your honor. We can look into whether

Judge Bauer: It was a question of fact, and he made a resolution based on affidavits?

Handelman: If I could look into that and get back to you I would prefer to do that.

Judge Bauer: I have no idea how the decree came to be, thats my problem

Handelman: OK

Judge Diane S. Sykes: Do you know whether the constitutionality of issuing such an Injunction was litigated, given the religious context?

Handelman: Yeah, I believe Judge Austin made explicit findings that the trademark laws apply equally to religious organizations and commercial organizations and that this, this case involved a blatant infringement of trademark rights that were recognized under federal law.

Judge Sykes: The legal landscape in this area of course has changed since then. We are talking of, about an injunction issued 40 years ago and the Supreme Court, in the meantime has issued the Presbyterian Church case that talks about the principles, the neutral principles doctrine that needs to be applied in this context, and of course that
case wasn’t on the books at the time.

Handelman: That is correct your honor. With respect to, first of all the validity of the trademark and the finding of infringement, those issues are not open to be retried in the context of a contempt proceeding as a prefatory matter, but beyond that the law is well
settled that religious organizations as I mentioned are entitled to the protection of the trademark laws and in this case…

Judge Sykes: But they are not entitled to a judicial declaration that their church is the one true church and thats what Judge Austin said.

Handelman: Well if, your honor, in the context of a religious case under the Lanham Act, the mark is valid. There is no per se rule against trademark protection in the religious organization context. What you look at is whether the mark in question signifies affiliation or membership with a single organization and in this case the National
Spiritual Assembly has a three tiered administrative structure as is laid out in the briefs. You have the Universal House of Justice at the highest level, you have the national spiritual assemblies at the intermediate level of which there are 183 worldwide, and then you have the local spiritual assembly. The Baha’i mark is federally registered, is extensively used, was federally registered at the time of the original injunction, and it signifies members who are affiliated with national spiritual assemblies authorized by the Universal House of Justice in Haifa. Now whats happening in this case, the Alleged
Contemnors, are through their web sites calling themselves the official, in one case, the SIBC has a web site where it calls itself the official Universal House of Justice, and as a result prospective members are going to that site thinking they are contacting our client, the Universal House of Justice in Haifa Israel, when they are not. They are also believing that the content on the site is approved by the Universal House of Justice, when it is not. And this is precisely the harm that the Lanham Act is intended to prevent and Professor McCarthy in his treatise recognizes as much, and if I could quote briefly: “If a parent religious society remains true to the tenets of the religion it is entitled to protection against the minority’s use of the same name. For example, a preliminary injunction can be obtained by the Mother Church against a local which has disaffiliated as it stops paying to the Mother Church and the rationale makes sense because without a preliminary injunction the Mother Church would be outside of…”

Judge Bauer: Who are you quoting at the moment?

Handelman: Professor McCarthy, his treatise on Trademark and Unfair Competition. So he is recognizing…

Judge Bauer: He is recognizing but the Supreme Court is more significant than Professer McCarthy is I would suspect, wouldn’t you?

Handelman: But the point is that this case does not call upon this Court to evaluate religious doctrine. It calls upon this Court to apply the Lanham Act to religious organizations which has been done before.

Judge Sykes: Well to the extent that you are reading the injunction as prohibiting anyone other than the NSA from using the word Baha’i in the title of the religious organization’s name, um, that clearly raises some constitutional concerns. Is that how you are reading the injunction? That you have exclusive, that your client has exclusive rights to the term Baha’i and no schismatic organization, schismatic group, breakaway group could ever use it into perpetuity in the United States?

Handelman: As long as the trademark rights are valid and federally registered and not abandoned, that is correct, as Professor…

Judge Sykes: The word Baha’i? So to use a hypothetical. Someone could copyright Christianity. Somebody could copyright Judaism, and that would prohibit anybody else from using that terminology in the title of their religious organization?

Handelman: No, each, each religious name or

Judge Sykes: I am sorry, not copyright, trademark.

Handelman: Yeah, each religious name or mark has to be evaluated on its own merits. There is no blanket…

Judge Sykes: But whats the response to the hypothetical, though?

Handelman: The hypothetical is yes, we. In other words a splinter group that is not affiliated with the National Spiritual Assembly authorized by the Universal House of Justice is not permitted to use the term Baha’i in a way where it is holding itself out as being affiliated with the group headed by and authorized by the Universal House of Justice.

Judge Sykes: Well that’s, that’s, different. But they can use the word Baha’i in the name of their new church, but they just can’t use it in a way that implies affiliation with the Mother Church.

Handelman: That is correct. They cannot, cannot confuse the public into believing that they are affiliated with the Mother church when they are not, particularly where, as here, their doctrines are in many cases antithetical to those espoused by the Mother Church.

Judge Sykes: What could they call themselves and escape liability for contempt?

Handelman: They would have to use a non-confusingly similar name because they are not…

Judge Sykes: Can they use the word Baha’i?

Handelman: It would depend on– not if it suggested affiliation with the Mother Church.

Judge Bauer: How about Reform Baha’i? Can they use that term?

Handelman: That would be a hypothetical that…

Judge Bauer: That’s my hypothetical…

Handelman: It would…

Judge Bauer: And I want a hypothetical answer.

Handelman: If the use suggested affiliation…

Judge Bauer: I just gave it to you. Reform Baha’i.

Handelman: No that. Under the injunction, that would be prohibited. The injunction…

Judge Bauer: Yeah, I read the Injunction. I just don’t know how it came to be. But you’re going to enlighten me on that subject.

Handelman: So the injunction would prohibit a use likely to cause confusion as to affiliation….

COMMENT BY JEFFERY GOLDBERG

Funny thing is Mr. Handelman quotes from Professor McCarthy that “If a parent religious society remains true to the tenets of the religion it is entitled to protection against the minority’s use of the same name.” Of course, the Wilmette NSA DOES NOT REMAIN TRUE to the tenets of the religion as the Orthodox Baha’is are constantly pointing out.

We do not know how the Court will rule, but clearly the Judges of the 7th Circuit are not fooled by the NSA’s obfuscation. The NSA wants the Courts to enforce their belief that they are the one and only Baha’i Faith, and the NSA has proved itself to be in contempt of the basic religious freedoms of this country, even while the publicly whine about similarly motivated persecution against them in Iran, a country that does not have the same traditions of freedom of religion.

The true colors of the NSA come out here. They would trample over our freedom of religion and the Bill of Rights of the U.S. constitution.

This is the World Order they seek to impose upon the world.

Jeffrey

There has been no evidence that the Orthodox Baha’is have any web sites or publications that confuse the public to believe that we are affiliated with the headless UHJ. To the contrary, everything on our sites is critical of that organization and expressly points out our differences. But they have taken the position that simply use of the word “Baha’i” somehow creates the confusion and this is an absurd and over-reaching view.

Jeffrey

The suit involves both the Orthodox Baha’is and the Baha’is under the Provisions of the Covenant (which is the Jensen/Chase group and I believe is responsible for the web site you mentioned). My point was that there is nothing like that from the OBF group. The NSA’s actual position, as stated by Handelman after questioning by the Judges, is that nobody else can use the word Baha’i, and this position is outrageous if only you could see dispassionately and free of fanatic blinders.

Jeffrey

There is no confusion in use of terms. The NSA’s attorney was trying his best not to state what their position was, but after being hammered by the Judges, he was forced to admit that the NSA wants to enforce the Judgment’s finding that they are the one true Baha’i Faith and they are the only ones who could call themselves Baha’i.

This finding happens to be unconstitutional and goes against a long line of Supreme Court precedent which began in 1969, several years after the Judgment was entered. This is what bothers the Judges of the Court of Appeals. The NSA is asking them to deny us our religious freedom– the right to call ourselves Baha’is.

Jeffrey

The comments of the heterodox believers demonstrates their lack of understanding of the Faith. They don’t think that preventing us from calling ourselves Baha’i would prevent us from practicing our religion. But isn’t that what the Iranian authorities are doing:

“Stop saying you are a Baha’i and then we will restore your rights”?

They effectively wish us to recant our Faith.

Jeffrey

The Supreme Court case was not decided until 1969, and at the time of the 1966 Judgment the federal courts were split on the issue (which split was resolved by the Supreme Court).

The Orthodox Baha’is did raise the issue and the line of cases from 1969 on neutrality principles, but Judge St. Eve never even reached the issue because she ruled that the Orthodox Baha’is were not even bound by the Judgment. Since we are not bound by it, the question of the Judgment’s enforceability did not have to be decided.

Jeffrey

I believe this is a correct statement. There is binding authority and persuasive authority. A decision of this Court of Appeals is binding only in the 7th Circuit, although its logic and reasoning will be persuasive beyond that.

Jeffrey

Not only does Judge Bauer mention Reform Baha’i but he insists that the NSA’s attorney answer whether or not someone could call himself a Reform Baha’i, and the NSA attorney finally is forced to admit the NSA’s position which is that nobody can call themselves a Baha’i unless they are recognized by his client’s UHJ.

Jeffrey

Not only is it disgraceful, but it is extremely hypocritical for them to run to Congress seeking its condemnation of Iran for persecution of Baha’is when they are doing the same to us.  While the NSA’s persecution of the OBF may be different in scale (but only because the NSA does not have the power to imprison us or execute us), they are motivated by the same idea that they perceive us to be heretical and because we are opposed to their religious authority. It is mind- boggling for these people to expect the federal courts in the United States to enforce their version of the Baha’i Faith, to say they are the one true Faith and everyone else cannot be Baha’is.

It really does not matter, though, whether they get a court order against us, or whether they have suckered a whole bunch of people so that they have larger numbers.  It does not matter how small we are. The only thing that matters is what is true and what is false.  They are false and they are destined to fail.  Their entire organization is a house of cards ready to tumble down at any time. Thank God for that!

Jeffrey

 

 

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

WHO IS A COVENANT BREAKER?

Posted on January 9, 2011. Filed under: Uncategorized |

A covenant breaker is a Baha’i who fully understands and grasps the significance of the Covenant and recognizes the Center of the Cause, the Living Guardian, but who rejects and betrays the living Guardian for compelling personal reasons.

The Bahá’í Writings teach that covenant breaking is a spiritual disease and the Writings are replete with warnings about the great harm that will come to the Cause unless Bahá’ís everywhere are vigilant about avoiding them.

But exactly what is a covenant breaker, how does a Bahá’í become one, and what can we do to make sure that we do not fall under their influence?

For a full explanation of the Covenant of Bahá’u’lláh, read the article What does He want you to do as a community?  For a complete discussion of how the Center of the Cause was rejected by most Bahá’ís, read the article on The Great Violation.

It is important to distinguish between persons whom have broken the Covenant and others whom have been merely misled away from the Covenant.

COVENANT BREAKER

A covenant breaker is a Baha’i who fully understands and grasps the significance of the Covenant and recognizes the Center of the Cause, the Living Guardian. However, he knowingly and purposefully betrays the Center of the Cause due to personal and selfish concerns or pursuits. This condition is born of an arrogance that leads the wayward Baha’i into believing that he or she has a better approach than what has been put forth by the Will of God. The covenant breaker believes that he or she knows better or has a compelling personal reason to reject and betray the Center of the Cause.

Covenant breaking is a spiritual disease, highly contagious and compared by ‘Abdu’l-Baha to the physical affliction of leprosy and that is why it has now assumed epidemic proportions in the Baha’i world since the passing of Shoghi Effendi. If we consider that the institutions of the Baha’i Administrative Order had been healthy living organisms during the ministry of the first Guardian, it was only, following his death in 1957, that this deadly infection of violation first attacked the immune system of one of these living organisms of the Faith, i.e. the Hands of the Cause, who in turn infected the other organisms such as Baha’i assemblies and through them the contagion was spread worldwide to most of the believers in the Faith. This infection had spread in this way very quickly throughout the Faith.  Only, Shoghi Effendi’s appointed successor, the Head of the Faith, “Center of the Cause” and “the sacred and youthful branch, the guardian of the Cause of God” alone remained immune to this infection as he was  “under the care and protection of the Abha Beauty“.

It was not long, however before some of the institutions and believers who had received a spiritual antitoxin, in the form of the second Guardian’s writings, recognized the virulence of this spiritual poison and became impervious to it, with the result that certain Baha’i organs, such as the National Spiritual Assembly of France, the Local Spiritual Assembly of Lucknow, India and some of the faithful believers in United States, Europe, Iran, India and Pakistan became immune to its effect. However the now affected and deformed cells of the immune system of the bogus UHJ presently headquartered in Haifa developed into an apparently incurable big spiritual tumor, which caused this thoroughly diseased body, in turn, to further infect all parts of the body of the Faith and paralyze all sense of understanding and logic on the part of most of the believers. That is how this tragic violation of the Covenant of Baha’u’llah happened. But the good news is that soon the Divine physician will inevitably extract the big tumor described above and its spiritual claws. Then the Faith will become healthy again.

Certainly everybody must take this warning very seriously:

We have a fixed time for you, O peoples. If ye fail, at the appointed hour, to turn towards God, He, verily, will lay violent hold on you, and will cause grievous afflictions to assail you from every direction. How severe, indeed, is the chastisement with which your Lord will then chastise you!

(Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, p. 214)

MISLED BELIEVER

A misled believer, on the other hand, does not have knowledge but comes under the influence of a covenant breaker and blindly accepts whatever he or she has to say. This is not covenant breaking. This condition arises from a shallowness of belief—a lack of faith. These misled and faithless believers must not be shunned. Instead they must be lovingly nurtured and deepened until their faith goes deeper in the Centre of Cause.

WHAT IS FAITHFULNESS TO COVENANT

Faithfulness to the Covenant should be understood as a spiritual process and journey. In order for a Bahá’í to properly take this journey, he or she must deepen in the Writings, become a sincere and independent investigator of Truth, and become a True Seeker. Bahá’u’lláh came to establish the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. If one is to be a true Bahá’í, one must recognize and obey the Guardian. To do this, one must grow spiritually until there is the capacity to see and accept the Center of the Cause. It is not enough to remain on the surface of the Ocean of Bahá’u’lláh’s Revelation. He requires a deeper understanding and acceptance of the Faith. The independent investigation of Truth is our spiritual obligation.

TRUE SEEKER

A True Seeker does not have pre-conceived notions of what he or she will accept. The True Seeker knows what Truth is. All else is error and has no meaning or existence. Thus, the True Seeker will go wherever the Truth may lead. When a deaf, dumb, and blind Bahá’í awakens, True Faith is born and the wayward Bahá’í awakens to the truths of the Covenant. In other words, a deepened Bahá’í is a Bahá’í that has recognized the living Guardian of the Faith and obeys him.

There is a community of deepened Bahá’ís who remain completely unkown to the larger group of “blind, deaf, and dumb” Bahá’ís (those who have not yet been enlightened with the truth of the Covenant). Only those believers who remain faithful to the Center of the Cause— the living Guardian of the Cause– can be said to be True Baha’is. They understand that God really meant everything uttered from the mouths of Bahá’u’lláh and `Abdu´l-Bahá. They accept that the Bahá’í Revelation is a blueprint for God’s Plan for our society. This blueprint must be followed exactly. It is not acceptable to deviate at all from the Plan established by God Himself.

To be True Bahá’ís, it is required that we be fully prepared to render instant, exact, and complete obedience to the Center of the Cause.

When we have become deepened in the Bahá’í Revelation, and we have sincere, unyielding and complete faith in the Truth, we no longer have anything to fear. We have no doubt about our position. There is nobody to convince or convert. We simply stand for the Truth with full knowledge that the Truth will prevail and will be victorious.

Covenant breakers and the misled shallow believers who follow them are not characterized by the peaceful and fearless traits of the True Bahá’ís. Because they have no Faith, they respond with fear and frustration, and the urgent desire to proselytize and convert others to their position. They have great fear that something will go wrong and that the Bahá’í Revelation will come to naught. Since they don’t really accept the validity of the Bahá’í Revelation, they have doubts about it. They desire to make changes and to improve it. They want to substitute their own judgment for the Will of God. They attack and fear anybody who challenges their belief system because they are not so sure about it themselves. The more converts they can find, the better they feel that they are on the right course. If they can find leaders to guide them, they can let go of their fear and simply be a follower without question.

All Bahá’ís must come into the Light. It is time for Bahá’ís everywhere to begin their spiritual journey back to the shade of the Tree of the Covenant. Know that God is, and that all of His attributes, such as Love, Knowledge, and Glory, are the only things that really exist. All else is falsehood. Our job is to turn to Bahá’u’lláh, render instant, exact, and complete obedience to the Third Guardian, Joel B. Marangella and allow God’s attributes to shine within our souls.

Be assured that the gates are always open for those who learn to understand the lineage of the Covenant as prescribed by Baha’u’llah and ‘Abdu’l-Baha, and embrace the current Center of that Covenant, the living Third Guardian, Joel B. Marangella. Those who do so will be welcomed with open arms into the fold of the True Baha’i Faith, the Orthodox Baha’i Faith.

Compiled By: Hand of the Cause Y.H. Taylor

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Victory of Covenant – PART-B. Great Victory for the OTHODOX BAHA’I FAITH in the Court Case

Posted on December 25, 2010. Filed under: Uncategorized |

The Provisional National Bahá’í Council of the United States, the governing body over Orthodox Bahá’ís, issued the following statement on December 5, 2010

Orthodox Bahá’í Faith wins appeal before 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

CHICAGO, IL– After reviewing briefs and then hearing oral arguments on February 20, 2009, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, on November 23, 2010, to uphold the judgment previously handed down by the United States District Court. It was the ruling of the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve of April 23, 2008, after holding an evidentiary hearing January 7, 2008 in Chicago, Illinois, that the Orthodox Bahá’í Faith was found not guilty of contempt charges levied against it by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States (Wilmette NSA). The injunction that the Orthodox Bahá’í Faith was accused of violating would have prohibited it from using the name “Bahá’í”, meaning a follower of Baha’u’llah (as the name Christian refers to one who follows Christ.)

In the ruling of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, it found that the original judgment and ruling of Judge St. Eve to be sound and free of any legal error. It therefore upheld in its entirety the innocence of the Orthodox Bahá’í Faith in the contempt charges levied against it by the Wilmette NSA. Furthermore, the Appellate Court could not refute her written judgment in which she cited that key witnesses for the Orthodox Bahá’í Faith, Franklin D. Schlatter and Marilyn Meyer, gave “credible testimony” that the organization was not formed with the intention of violating the 1966 Judgment.

The Court of Appeals affirmed that the Orthodox Bahá’ís were not legally identified with the NSA under Mason Remey and therefore the Orthodox Bahá’í Faith is not bound by the 1966 Judgment. The original injunction was issued over forty years ago to that now-extinct rival body to the Wilmette NSA. In the judgment handed down by Judge St. Eve, she wrote: “[T]he chain of succession lacks a link.”

“The Council is pleased that the Court of Appeals upheld the sound decision of Judge St. Eve. We the Orthodox Baha’is of the United States, as fellow believers in the Faith of Baha’u’llah, differ with the Wilmette NSA only in that we believe Shoghi Effendi did not fail in his duty to appoint a successor during his lifetime,” said Jeffrey Goldberg, the Secretary of the Provisional National Bahá’í Council for the Orthodox Bahá’ís (PNBC).

The Wilmette NSA, a national branch of the world organization with over 6 million members, brought the legal action against the PNBC, whose membership, in contrast, numbers about 50 in the United States, many of whom are lifelong believers.

As a result of the Appellate Court upholding the original findings of Judge St Eve, assuming it becomes final, there is no legal impediment to the Orthodox Bahá’í Faith’s use of the name “Bahá’í” in identifying itself and it may continue to teach its belief in the continuing Guardianship of the Faith of Baha’u’llah, a teaching in direct opposition to that taught by the NSA group. The Orthodox Baha’i Faith recognizes Joel B. Marangella as the rightful living Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Victory of Covenant – Part A. The Sans-Guardian Organisation has failed to learn a lesson from its HUMILATING defeat

Posted on December 25, 2010. Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , |

It is really shameful on the part of the bogus UHJ to file a petition in the Court of Appeals to review the case. It looks like that the sans-Guardian organization has lost its mental balance and hence has failed to take any lesson from such a humiliating defeat at the band of the faithful followers of Baha’u’llah under the Guardianship of the third Guardian, Joel B. Marangella. The sans-Guardian organization is built on shifting sand, which with every passing day, is losing its stature.

The NSA-UHJ obviously knew that their case would not be worth anything if it was based on the 1966 trademark ruling so they blatantly attempted to have the previously applied injunction towards Remey’s organization applied to the Orthodox Baha’i Faith. But they failed to prove (twice) that the 1966 ruling applied to the Orthodox Baha’i Faith.

Instead of the bogus UHJ clarifying the matter of the continuation of the Guardianship for its followers, the bogus UHJ is trying to harass the faithful followers of Baha’u’llah with the might of money and power. This is exactly what Hand of Cause, Mr. David Maxwell predicted would occur in one of his letters addressed to the Third International Baha’i Council after our first court victory.

The Indian heterodox Baha’is are wondering how much this NSA-UHJ’s wrong doing is costing them? They are now realizing that the money that they have been paying in the name of Huququllah is being spent in a disastrously destructive manner which has not brought anything other than humiliation for them?

Honestly, the pursuance of this legal case has been obviously embarrassing for all the heterodox Baha’is throughout the world, and especially so for those in India. This unsuccessful outcome is not surprising at all and it has come at a great price to them, both financially and prestige wise. There is already considerable media attention covering the decision which naturally reflects against the heterodox organization. This recent verdict will further focus unfavorable media attention on them.

But the basic question remains and that is: was the sans-Guardian organization unaware:

1-That the law does not allow for terms employed in the public domain to be trademarked or copyrighted. This is why no one can lay claim to the word “Muslim”or “Christian” or the symbol of the Cross, etc. In view of this fact, it is astonishing that the NSA made such a foolish decision to go ahead and waste their time and the funds of the Faith in such a manner.

2-They either had most incompetent legal representation who failed to inform them of this very basic and fundamental legal fact, or they were informed and chose to ignore such advice and forged ahead nevertheless.

The obvious answer to the question is that the this new appeal has been filed by the bogus UHJ, due to compulsion and not by choice. Because they know that the orthodox Baha’is are continuing to ask their basic question about their refusal to accept the continuation of the Guardianship so clearly promised and provided for in the sacred and immutable provisions of the WILL AND TESTAMENT OF ABDU’L-BAHA. The UHJ is well aware that they cannot provide a valid answer to this question so, therefore, it is better to keep the Baha’is busy with the court case.

Y.H. Taylor,
Hand of Cause,
13-12-2010

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Mason Remey and Those Who Followed Him

Posted on August 27, 2010. Filed under: Uncategorized |

The article entitled “Mason Remey and Those Who Followed Him” contains much truth, but it also contains a number of half-truths or falsehoods.  Thus, those who are not knowledgeable about which parts of the document are true and which are somewhat off the mark may come to the erroneous impression that the entire article is true.  Such is simply not the case.

It is true that the sans-Guardian Universal House of Justice wrote to explain their new definition of Covenant-breaking on 23 March 1975, which, in effect, abrogated the definition of Covenant-breaking that existed in ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s and Shoghi Effendi’s ministries.  That new definition of Covenant-breaking essentially sanctioned the take-over of the Faith in 1957 by the Hands of the Cause, for the UHJ’s definition states that an attack on the Central Institution of the Faith is a violation of the Covenant, and since the UHJ subscribes to the theory that after November of 1957 there were no more Guardians, then, ipso facto, the Hands, as a collective Guardian–a role which is nowhere described for the Hands in the writings of the Faith–were the Central Institution of the Faith between 1957-1963 and they could determine who was Covenant-breaking because they only had to decide who was acting in opposition to them and cast them from the Faith.  Subsequent to its own election in 1963, the UHJ, minus a “sacred head and distinguished member for life of that body,”  ascribed to itself  the role of the “Central Institution of the Faith,”  and, thus, the usurpers of the Cause seized the power to put anyone out of the Faith who questioned their illegitimate authority.

However, prior to 1957 the Center of the Faith could only be identified as the Guardian in asmuch as  the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá identifies the Guardian as the “Center of the Cause.”  The definition of Covenant-breaking at that time was given in John Ferraby’s book “All Things Made New.”  The edition that was published in 1957, prior to Shoghi Effendi’s death, stated:  “These Covenant- breakers profess to accept the teachings of Baha’u’llah but they turn away from the Centre of the Cause–in the day of the Centre of the Covenant, ‘Abdu’l-Baha, and in our day, the Guardian–and thereby they deny what they profess to accept.”

*****

It is true that ‘Abdu’l-Baha stated that Covenant-breakers “do not doubt the validity of the Covenant, but selfish motives have dragged them to this condition.” It is also true that the Master warned that, if unchecked, Covenant-breaking would “utterly destroy the Cause of God, exterminate His Law and render of no account all efforts exerted in the past.”     The article would have one believe that it was Mason Remey and his followers whose selfish motives are to be questioned. But is it not interesting that Mason Remey and his followers, particularly those who follow Joel Marangella today, maintain that to be a true believer one must show “loyal and steadfast adherence to every clause” of the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, whereas those who follow the Haifa organization no longer identify that as a qualification for membership?  How could they, when the UHJ itself has decreed that there are to be no more Guardians, and, in the process, has taken over a function of the Guardian’s which was not within its power to assume: the handling of the Huquq–which the Will says is “to be offered through the guardian of the Cause of God”?

And yet Shoghi Effendi stated on page 4 of “The World Order of Baha’u’llah” that the Kitab-i-Aqdas, Baha’u’llah’s Book of Laws, and the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Baha “are inseparable parts of one complete unit.”  So who is it, then, that is in the process of exterminating Baha’u’llah’s Law?

Is it those who are abiding by all the provisions of the Master’s Will, or those who are now ignoring what that Will provides?

*****

Yes, ‘Abdu’l-Baha said that “Were it not for the protecting power of the Covenant to guard the impregnable fort of the Cause of God, there would arise among the Baha’is, in one day, a thousand different sects as was the case in former ages.”  So when was the protecting power of the Covenant actually withdrawn?  That action occurred when the first cablegrams went forth from the Hands, calling for the believers to cling to the station of the Hands of the Faith, for when the believers turned to the Hands of the Faith instead of to the Center of the Cause the seeds of violation were planted around the world.

*****

Indeed so is the matter of Covenant-breaking “a spiritual contagion threatening the well-being of the individual believer because of its subtle appeal to the human ego”!  And who is it now that no longer feels that a living Guardian of the Faith is necessary within the Baha’i Administrative Order?  Who is it now that delights in the fact that they no longer have a Guardian over them?  One has only to look at the sans-Guardian organizations across the world to see the ones who have succumbed to  the “subtle appeal to the human ego” that is referred to in the article.

*****

Granted that Shoghi Effendi wrote that the “movements, sponsored by deluded, self-seeking adventurers, find themselves sooner or later, enmeshed in the machinations of their authors.”  That was written, of course, before the Hands of the Faith in 1957 seized upon the words “Chief Stewards of Baha’u’llah’s embryonic World Commonwealth” to mean that they themselves could form a collective Guardianship, thus setting in motion the train of events which found the Hands of the Cause rejecting the rightful successor to Shoghi Effendi and forming their own House of Justice without a Guardian as its “sacred head.”

*****

It is apparently true that the Hands of the Faith, upon the passing of Shoghi Effendi, looked for a will and testament.  But should they have been looking for a will when it is clear from the provisions of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s Testament that the appointment of the Guardian’s successor was to be in his own lifetime “that differences not arise after his passing”?  Thus, the appointment will not be made in a will, a document which normally is read after the testator’s death. It should have been obvious to the Hands that ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s Will actually foreclosed on the Guardian’s appointment of his successor being made via a will.

Indeed so, the entire body of Hands found themselves at a loss when their brief search for a will proved of no avail.  But was the condition of the Hands that which Horace Holley described when he developed their joint proclamation: “The first effect of the realization that no successor to Shoghi Effendi could have been appointed by him was to plunge the Hands of the Cause into the very abyss of despair”?

Naturally, if it were indeed the case that there were no Guardian, then the Hands, in thinking such a thought, should have been plunged into despair.

However, by the time the proclamation was written, most of the Hands were not distraught.  Rather, the majority of the Hands had already decided that the Will and Testament, and thus the Guardianship, was no longer operational, and they could now take over the Faith.

Since most people have not read Mason Remey’s Proclamation of 1960 or his “Daily Observations”, they may not realize  that he had had a vision some years prior to Shoghi Effendi’s passing in which he saw himself as the Guardian of the Faith.  However, at the time of Shoghi Effendi’s death he did not realize the manner in which he had succeeded to the Guardianship.  That realization did not come until  some two years later when he perceived the connection between his presidency of the International Baha’i Council, the

embryonic Universal House of Justice, and his accession to the Guardianship of the Faith.  It was on the basis of the vision he had had some few years before and on his own thought “that there be nothing of the kind for me in that vision” that he signed the first letter put out by the Hands following their conclave in Akka.

Inasmuch as Mason Remey signed on with the other Hands and went along with the majority who had decided that the Will was “Bada”, remaining in Haifa as one of the so-called “Custodians of the Faith” (and remonstrating with his fellow-Hands on an almost daily basis not to violate the Covenant and the Will and Testament by abandoning the Guardianship–all to no avail), he was enabled to observe the other Hands and to realize over the course of two years that most of the other Hands did not want another Guardian. Talk about violation!  ‘Abdu’l-Baha wrote in His Will that the Hands were to be “ever watchful and so soon as they find anyone beginning to oppose and protest against the guardian of the Cause of God” they were to “cast him out from the congregation of the people of Bahá.”  Yet it was the Hands themselves who were in opposition to there being another Guardian!

*****

It should be accepted as true that when the Hands decided to form their sans- Guardian UHJ they thought that “all the conditions of the Faith [could] be examined anew and the measures necessary for its future operation determined in consultation with the Hands of the Cause.”  Yet where in the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Baha is the authority for the Hands of the Cause to determine the future operation of the Faith in consultation with the UHJ?

It’s not there!

*****

The article indicates that Mason Remey “himself laid claim” to the Guardianship of the Faith in his Proclamation of April 1960.  Those who have not read Mason Remey’s Proclamation may feel that such a statement is true.

However, Mason Remey did …

*****

It is clear that the article refers to “divisions” among Remey’s followers.

In all justice, though, the article could just as readily have  referred to “divisions” from the organization directed by the Hands and the sans-Guardian UHJ, for the individuals that are identified as the followers of Mason Remey were, first of all, members of the Faith under Shoghi Effendi and then were within the Faith usurped by the Hands.  Suffice it to say, that such individuals as John Carre, Reginald King, and Leland Jensen had their own agendas, and in their efforts to carry out their agendas they eventually violated the Covenant. But their violation had nothing to do with whether they followed Mason Remey or not, for Mason Remey was not a Covenant-breaker.

Finally, the manner in which  Mason Remey’s appointments of Donald Harvey and Joel Marangella were made is a matter of historical record, and those who are willing to investigate the facts can see why those who followed Donald Harvey went their way and why those of us who follow Joel Marangella now call ourselves Orthodox Bahá’ís.  But to characterize Joel B. Marangella as a “forlorn survivor” of those who followed Mason Remey is to underestimate the power of the Covenant and to exaggerate the importance of the number of adherents of the Faith.

The article’s author seems to derive strength and comfort from the fact that so few of the members of the Baha’i Faith at the time of Shoghi Effendi’s passing had recognized Mason Remey, and even fewer of those believers ultimately had the insight to recognize Joel Marangella’s appointment. The author’s implicit assumption is that the number of followers of the Guardian is the criterion by which to  judge the veracity of his claim to the office. Does it follow that because most of the Baha’is of the world have rejected the Guardian of the Faith that he therefore must be an impostor?

The history of religion informs us that a religious movement is not to be judged by the number of its adherents. The history of the people of Israel, as recounted in the Books of the Old Testament, is replete with references to this basic truth. One particularly good example is found in the story of how God delivered the people of Israel from the oppression of the Midianites in chapters 6 and 7 of the Book of Judges. Gideon’s army was reduced from thousands of soldiers to a few hundred: “And the Lord said unto Gideon, The people that are with thee are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hands, lest Israel vaunt themselves against me, saying Mine own hand hath saved me.” Judges 7:2. Then God tested them, and the few that remained in the army defeated the enemy through the “sword of the Lord.”

Of course, we, as Baha’is, have the example of the defenders of Shaykh Tabarsi, who, at the outset, numbered some 300 Babis untrained in the art of war who remained undefeated, even though regiment after regiment of soldiers were dispatched to conquer them. The enemies of the Faith were only able to bring about their surrender after ignominiously making an oath on the Qu’ran to permit them safe passage and then slaughtering them when they came out of the fort.

The Covenant of Baha’u’llah is not dependent upon the Baha’is. Rather the success of their efforts to establish His Administrative Order is dependent upon the power of the Covenant. The Hands and those who followed them vainly believe that they can change the principles and institutions of the Administrative Order as outlined in the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, as if this Order belonged to them. But the World Order of Baha’u’llah does not belong to the Baha’is, and they do not have the power to change it, no matter how many people join with them. As Shoghi Effendi makes abundantly clear in “The Dispensation of Baha’u’llah,” the Administrative Order of Baha’u’llah is divine in origin. It is not a manmade system, and it is not dependent upon the peoples of the world for its authority or power.

Like Gideon’s army, the faithful supporters of the Third Guardian, Joel B. Marangella, will be victorious through the power of the Covenant of God. Those who vaunt themselves against God, believing they have the power to establish God’s Kingdom after their own fancies, will perish.

The future will undoubtedly record who are the past and present-day violators of the Covenant.  All of us who live in the present, though, especially those of us who consider ourselves to be Baha’is, would be well-advised to investigate this matter thoroughly and to seek out the truth for ourselves.

Frank Schlatter

The Mother Bahá’í Council of the United States

obf…@rt66.com

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

The Illegitimacy and Fraud of the Bogus UHJ through Ali Nakhjavani’s Blatant Perversion of the Truth

Posted on September 23, 2009. Filed under: Uncategorized |

THE ILLEGITIMACY AND FRAUD OF THE BOGUS UHJ IS EXPOSED THROUGH ALI NAKHJAVAN’S BLATANT PERVERSION OF THE TRUTH.

By Hand of the Cause of God Nosrat’u’llah Bahremand

Note from The Third Guardian Joel B. Marangella

 Nosrat has requested my review of his critique and the correction of any errors in the use of the English language as it is not his native tongue.  In the process of reviewing his outstanding critique I have taken the opportunity to add here and there some words, and phrases, revise the structure of some sentences to enhance the argument presented and even add a few additional pertinent quotations which I have felt would further reinforce his already excellent critical analysis of Nakhjavani’s diabolical efforts to pervert the sacred Writings and the writings of Shoghi Effendi in support of his diabolical repudiation of the continuing Guardianship of the Cause of God. JBM

 PART 1 Introduction | PART 2 | PART 3 | PART 4 | PART 5 | PART 6

PART 7 | PART 8 | PART 9 | PART 10 | PART 11 Conclusion  

 Comment by Hand of Cause of God David Maxwell

God’s Plan is Forever

Hand of the Cause of God Nosrat Bahremand has penned an extensive critique of an article by Ali Nakhjavan, [Part 1] [Part 2] who has taken various of the Holy Bahá’í Writings out of context to justify the continuation of the Haifa posture that their Administrative Order, sans-guardian, is valid.

An overall consideration for anyone to account for when writing about the Faith in any manner, is the fact that humans in this realm are completely dependant upon God whether they realize it or not. We are all eventually accountable to God. At the extreme, we have all known friends who question whether there is a God or not, and whether the act of worship is a complete waste of time; a mere ritual. Even those souls are at the complete mercy of a loving God. They prosper on this plane and some of them seem to surpass others of us in accomplishments. And so it is with all who write for or about the Faith as well. At the extreme in this example, some are opposed to there ever being another guardian, and others follow the Institution of the Guardianship. Each position has adherents with very strong feelings that God is completely in their corner. It seems such a mystery.

For any who have studied and practice any sort of religious activity, there is usually one thing that is constant; the belief in an afterlife. There is a heaven for all those who practice their religion, although even their heaven may appear different than that expected by others in many cases. The general agreement among the various versions of a heaven is that it affords a better life than we have here, with more goodness and happiness for all who attain. We can agree on that much.

And then there is the matter of some who would alter God’s Word to more closely fit the pattern they follow in their worship practices. Most who do that are completely confident of what they do, and do not look beyond the reality of their own definitions. In the case of Christian worshipers, among the many different interpretations of the Gospel, they all feel comfortable with whatever it is they have determined to be the “right path.” And perhaps rightly so, since their actions coincide with many others, and even their own family members, for justification of their position. It has been 2,000 years since Christ walked the earth, and generations of belief patterns have established a certain “numbness” to the overall picture.

One of the human faculties that allows anyone complete satisfaction in their particular manner of worship is a little thing we call ego. The inner voice of each of us either approves or disapproves of every action we take. It is much more likely that our inner egos approve rather than disapprove of our actions because of the script established for us during our formative years at the hand of a mother or father; a basis for the overwhelming approval is that grand pappy and his grand pappy acted similarly and since the family tree has done so well for years and years, there is no need to deviate from that established pattern. Remember what Christ had to say about the sins of the father being passed on to the offspring?

So if one considers carefully, there is an established human pattern, aided by the ego, that yields the same types of results over and over again, so far as the things that humans do with their lives. A primary intention of Bahá’u’lláh’s Revelation was to break the old patterns, and require humans to study and learn for themselves, regardless of what the accepted knowledge of the day was. Bahá’u’lláh revealed His Message, wrote countless Words to promoted its Teachings, established for its longevity through the establishment of a unique Administrative Order, and did this at a time when human capacity had been infused with a God-given capability to understand and use this new power.

Bahá’u’lláh did not release a “mission impossible.“ However, the Revelation He released did require the diligent thought of all who encountered it in order that they could withstand its Mighty Power. The Bahá’í Faith is not a slam dunk situation. It is not a once saved always saved phenomena such as some of the Christian Denominations avow. The Bahá’í Faith requires its independent investigation by each and every individual who meets its sweet call, and then requires an attitude of independent investigation and pursuit during the remainder of that person’s life, regardless of any external forces to the contrary.

The Bahá’í Faith is not a cake walk.

Ali Nakhjavan, in his article, attempts to justify something that has already been thoroughly discussed by noted figures within the Faith, such as its Originator, the Center of its Covenant, and its First Guardian. A reading of all of the Writings of those Holy individuals within the context of all of their accumulated Writings determines a different conclusion than what Nakhjavan has reached in his discussion. To the casual observer, that would seem odd. Here we have a Revelation with clearly noted guidelines, guidelines that were actually penned by the Manifestation and his appointed Heirs. This is in contrast to the lack of written instructions penned by His Holiness the Christ. In fact, Bahá’u’lláh took it a step further, and His Holy Lineage outlined the means of a living interpreter of His Word throughout the entire 1,000 year tenure of His Dispensation. What could be more clear than Bahá’u’lláh’s intention that His appointed interpreters, the guardians, handle any required explanations for the believers, rather than someone such as the non-guardian Nakhjavan and those among the heterodox Bahá’ís who follow the same pattern?

Now, getting back to my observation, an observation that down through the centuries humans have followed the patterns of their ancestors, based in part upon the urgings of their own egos. Those egos have developed a comfort zone for them, one in which the expectation of the next life is one of goodness, based upon the following of certain established patterns established within their own families, based upon that family’s understanding of God. Even those who would say that they are the only Bahá’ís in their family, the first one,are caught up in the ego-formed patterns of parental pattern in determining how they approach all things.

This is where we were when Bahá’u’lláh presented his Message of change, and this is generally where we are as humans some 140 odd years later. In spite of Bahá’u’lláh’s Message, there has been very little to no change at all in the traditional manner that humans approach religious activity, and that unfortunately includes the Bahá’í Faith. The pattern of following a personality or a congregation of thought continues, in spite of the admonishment of the Central figures that each individual should investigate for herself, and decide the direction to take. Although there are no “clergy” in the Bahá’í Faith, a cadre of faux clergy are demanding of their followers complete obedience to them, regardless of what the Holy Writings direct.

As Bahá’ís we are expected to understand what Bahá’u’lláh had in mind, and to attempt to live in a manner which begins to pull away from at least a part of the superstitious meanderings of our forefathers. We are expected to effect a change in humans along the lines of Bahá’u’lláh’s Message. Through the careful perusal of the Holy Writings and God’s Grace, we may be able to begin to break the superstitious patterns. Not so, Ali Nakhjavan and those who follow his bent. Those individuals are using the very words that Bahá’u’lláh intended for the enlightenment of the human soul, twisting their intent, and presenting them in order to convince others to continue following a false and corrupt interpretation of the very perfection of the Bahá’í Message! Who do they think they are kidding? For certain, they are not kidding God!

Do they not understand that God’s world is what it is. Nothing more nor less than that. God’s world was determined countless eons before Nakhjavan walked this earth, and will continue as such after he is departed from it, unchanged from God‘s original and perfect Plan. Should Nakhjavan’s ideas be completely off-base so far as Bahá’u’lláh’s intentions are concerned, and I believe they are, he will have jousted with windmills in this world, and face a most likely less-than-satisfying tenure in the next. And the important thing for humans is that he will have contributed nothing toward changing the overall Plan of the Bahá’í Faith. That Plan was established long before any of us, and will continue unchanged for ever and evermore.

We mortals can have no influence whatsoever upon the changing or modification of God’s Plan either here nor in the next world. All we can hope for is to be in alignment with that Plan as best we can while on this plane. We have the good fortune of having Bahá’u’lláh’s clear intentions, requiring no interpretation from mere mortals, to gain access to that alignment. Beyond that, it is all in the Hands of God.

By Hand of the Cause of God David Maxwell

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...