test

Response to on-line dialogue between Baha’is Under the Provisions of the Covenant and members of the Orthodox Baha’i Faith

Dear Orthodox Baha’is and followers of Joel Marengella and Brent Reed:

Don’t let yourselves get trapped in the miasma, mirasmus convolutions of the false Marangella doctrine of “spiritual son” dogma.

In researching the text of Mason’s announcement of his formation of the IBC you will find that Joel misconstrued this into being an appointment to the Guardianship. The text of Mason’s announcement is as follows:

Historic Appointments - Guardian announces creation of second International Baha’i Council. The Guardian of the Faith announces to the Baha’i World his decision to create the Second International Baha’i Council. This Council will exist in name only until conditions in the Faith require it to function as a Body. All powers vested in the appointed members of this Council are “potential.” President of the Council - Joel B. Marangella … [8 vice-presidents listed by name] … In the event the Guardian should be prevented from appointing his successor to the guardianship of the Faith, the President of this Council will become the Third Guardian of the Faith. If for any reason the President of the Council cannot assume this position then the first Vice-President will move into that position and if he should be prevented from assuming the responsibilities of the Guardianship then the second Vice-President will move into that position and so on down the line of Vice-Presidents in the order of their appointment by the Guardian. … The list of appointments as they appear above will remain in effect in their numerical order until further additions or rearrangements may be made by the Guardian. Mason Remey, Second Guardian Baha’i World Faith.

In Mason’s announcement of the “IBC” he said that the “Council will exist in name only.” He conveyed that Joel’s appointment was only “potential” that “All powers vested in the appointed members of this Council are potential.” He affirmed that he still had yet to appoint his successor in the guardianship and that he was not relinquishing that right. “In the event the Guardian should be prevented from appointing his successor to the guardianship of the Faith, the President of this Council will become the Third Guardian of the Faith.” Finally he asserted his right to change the entire arrangement as he felt necessary. “The list of appointments as they appear above will remain in effect in their numerical order until further additions or rearrangements may be made by the Guardian.”

In a post on the AOL message boards, Mzarg (an Orthodox Baha’i) cited a passage from `Abdu’l-Baha, which explains the necessity of firmness in the Covenant. It is rather ironic that Mzarg chose this passage because in it `Abdu’l-Baha stated about Baha’u'llah’s Kitab-i-Ahd,

“He made it all-exclusive and this Tablet is the last one which has been revealed by the Supreme Pen before ascension. All previous books are subordinate to this ‘Book of the Covenant’ for it has been revealed subsequently to all the previous ones.” (Star of the West, Vol. 10, No. 12 October 16, 1919, pp. 234-236.)

The interesting thing about this is that it means that the last command or decision overrides earlier ones if there is a difference. Mason Remey wrote something similar, he said that whenever he said something that was different from previous statements that the believers should go by the most recent one:

“At times of crisis at sea or in war, the last order of the captain of the ship or of the general in charge of battle must be the first order to be obeyed. All previous orders being temporarily set aside. This same principle should be adhered to by the Baha’is under the guardianship, present conditions being what they are. These conditions are constantly changing and the guardian’s instructions must necessarily be changing to meet the needs which new circumstances may bring.” (Mason Remey, from the Glad Tidings, a newsletter)

Despite these instructions the “Orthodox” Baha’is under the (pseudo) guardianship of Joel Bray Marangella claim that Mason’s choice of other guardians — after choosing, and later discarding, Joel — do not count.

Because they cannot accept that their guardian is false they then have to come up with diverse measures and various pretexts to assure themselves that Joel was still the guardian even after Mason chose someone else. (of course the reality is that `Abdu’l-Baha’s Will and Testament overrides anything Mason might do, at whatever time, Mason’s successor must be a son and appointed)

The answer they give is that as soon as Mason appointed Joel, the guardianship — which they believe includes infallibility — passed from Mason to Joel and therefore Mason no longer had any authority to do anything, not even to make a different choice of heir.

This is ludicrous.

Did Baha’u'llah’s authority cease when He appointed `Abdu’l-Baha? (in 1873 - in the Aqdas, 19 years before his passing) Did `Abdu’l-Baha’s authority cease when he appointed Shoghi Effendi? (starting in 1901, 20 years before his passing) Did `Abdu’l-Baha’s authority never even go into effect because Mirza Muhammad-Ali had also been appointed? Did Shoghi Effendi’s authority cease when he appointed Mason Remey? (in 1951 over 6 years before his passing)

Without any basis in the writings or the obvious history of the faith they insist on this doctrine that as soon as Mason appointed Joel, Mason was no longer the guardian.

Don’t the writings affirm that we don’t have to accept such doctrines that are not in conformity with scripture, history or reason?

***

The following are responses from various BUPCs to previous questions from members of the Marangella group.

All the Imams after Ali, including Sadig, were biologically descended from Muhammad through His daughter Fatima and His son-in-law Ali. Hence they were literal sons not spiritual sons. To say that Sadig was not a son of Muhammad, but a great, great, great, great grandson, is a non-starter.

It is my opinion that Joel has attempted to promulgate a doctrine with no real scriptural foundation. He offers a fatally flawed argument supposedly based in the writings, and then, based on that flawed argument, he makes a resounding statement as if it were fact.

Here is one basic flaw from Joel’s letter:

“It is clear that these terms have spiritual meanings and denote spiritual relationships and that with respect to those applying to ‘Abdu’l-Baha’. They are not to be confused with Abdu’l-Baha’s blood relationship to Baha’u'llah as His eldest Son.”

WRONG: The word for branch in Arabic, ghusn, is a commonly used Arabic term for a man’s biological sons. This is much like the western concept of the “family tree” only we include both male and female biological descendants as “branches.”

The doctrine in question serves his purpose of rationalizing how he could legitimately be the Guardian having not been a son of Mason Remey. It states that somehow Joel was a “spiritual son” of Mason. In defense of this doctrine he says that the term “The Most Mighty Branch” is a reference to `Abdu’l-Baha’s spiritual station and is “not to be confused with Abdu’l-Baha’s blood relationship to Baha’u'llah as His eldest Son.”

Joel goes on:

“Abdu’l-Baha on the next page of His Will provides for an alternative appointment in the following words: ‘Thus should the first-born of the guardian of the Cause of God not manifest in himself the truth of the words: –’The child is the secret essence of its sire’, that is, should he not inherit of the spiritual within him (the guardian of the Cause of God ) and his glorious lineage not be matched with a goodly character, then must he, (the guardian of the Cause of God) choose another branch to succeed him.’ It is clear that under these terms the incumbent Guardian of the Faith is free to choose any other male believer whose fidelity to the Covenant and spiritual qualifications make him worthy to be considered a ‘branch’ of the Holy Tree and to be appointed, therefore, as the Guardian’s successor.”

The term, The Most Mighty Aghsan (Branch), is, in part, a reference to a spiritual station and, in part, a reference to `Abdu’l-Baha’s genealogy. The spiritual station part is the “Most Mighty” segment of the phrase. The genealogy part is “Aghsan” (”Branch”). The Arabic word used here for “branch” is Aghsan. Talk to any Baha’i scholar and you will know that the term Aghsan applies specifically to Baha’u'llah’s male descendants, not male believers in general.

This idea that the term “another branch” can apply to any male believer is, therefore, wholly without merit and has no foundation in the writings. Thus, it is not clear, contrary to Joel’s assertion, that “the incumbent Guardian of the Faith is free to choose any other male believer whose fidelity to the Covenant and spiritual qualifications make him worthy to be considered a ‘branch’ of the Holy Tree and to be appointed, therefore, as the Guardian’s successor.”

Of course it’s just a hunch, but I have a feeling that what’s going on is that Joel’s male followers are jockeying for position, hoping to be that “chosen branch” by favorably impressing him with their acumen. What an interesting (and powerful!) position for Joel to be in.

As for `Abdu’l-Baha’s statement:

“Consider! The Divine Gardener cuts off the dry or weak branch from the good tree and grafts to it, a branch [Aghsan] from another tree.”

This was a very clever reference by `Abdu’l-Baha to Shoghi Effendi. He was specifically making reference to how He cut off Muhammad-`Ali and replaced him with Shoghi Effendi. The “other tree” mentioned in this passage was the family tree of the Bab. Shoghi Effendi was a collateral descendant of the Bab. This is why Shoghi Effendi was generally called Afnan, as the Afnan were descendants of the Bab. But here, `Abdu’l-Baha is calling Shoghi Effendi an “Aghsan from another tree.” He was an Aghsan, being a male descendant of Baha’u'llah [through his mother, but through his father] he was from another tree, the tree of the Bab. This is why the Will and Testament talks about Shoghi Effendi being the primal branch (Aghsan) grown out from the twin holy trees. Shoghi Effendi was unique in that he was descended both from the Bab and Baha’u'llah.

Those who follow Marangella make the mistake of thinking that son-ship can be so nebulous as to include all male believers. We know that it can’t be so general for all the reasons we discussed before. Basically, there has to be a definite criteria so that there won’t be room for argument on who is the real guardian. So the son-ship has to be either natural or through legal adoption.

Another Orthodox Baha’i posted:

If what you claim is true of Mason Remey, the fact that Abdu’l-Baha adopted him, then Mason would have been the first guardian, not Shoghi Effendi.

This is a significant point to raise, but your assertion is not true. Mason Remey was the adopted son of `Abdu’l-Baha. According to the adoption laws of the Ottoman Empire and the Jewish law of the Palestinian Mandate, a person is another person’s son if the first is publicly referred to as his son by the second and if the first receives a token from the second. Even a stick or a stone would suffice. `Abdu’l-Baha publicly referred to Mason as “my dear son,” “my real son.” Further, upon `Abdu’l-Baha’s ascension, one of the first official acts of Shoghi Effendi was to pass on to Mason the sacred packet containing the blood and hair of Baha’u'llah. On the outside of this packet, Shoghi Effendi wrote, “To `Abdu’l-Baha’s ‘dear son.’” Thus, both criteria for adoption were fulfilled. (This token was never passed from Mason to Joel, but rather, to Pepe, Mason’s adopted son.)

Why doubt the actions of the Master? Rather than doubting that these great spiritual leaders knew what they were doing, perhaps it would be wiser to question the depth of your own understanding.

Baha’u'llah, being a Manifestation, was infallible. In addition, He sat on the throne of David. Baha’u'llah passed the throne of David to `Abdu’l-Baha. He also conferred infallibility onto `Abdu’l-Baha. Thus, after the ascension of Baha’u'llah, `Abdu’l-Baha was the infallible Center of the Cause seated upon the throne of David. So what happened in 1921? `Abdu’l-Baha obviously knew the Plan of God. He knew that it called for an executive branch and a legislative branch operating in harmony in a Universal House of Justice with a Davidic Guardian at its head. He also knew that the Davidic Guardian was not to be an absolute monarch with dictatorial powers. The Guardian of the Baha’i Faith is not to be Pope-like. So He created the “dichotomy” in which He passed the throne of David to His son Mason Remey and the infallibility to Shoghi Effendi.

Shoghi Effendi did not inherit the throne of David, because the throne of David can only be passed through the male line. Because Shoghi Effendi’s father was a descendant of the Bab and not a son of Baha’u'llah, he could not have inherited the throne of David. This is why he passed the symbol of the Davidic bloodline, the packet of sacred Hair and Blood, to the one who did inherit the throne, Mason Remey.

The kind of Guardian who doesn’t want to assume his responsibilities as Guardian is a do-nothing Guardian, yet a Guardian just the same. Again, just because we may want the Guardian to behave a certain way doesn’t mean that we know better than God. God chose Pepe for a reason. It is not my place or anyone else’s to question his legitimate appointment, having fulfilled both criteria of being a son and being appointed.

***

I think you are straining at gnats with your point on capitalization, because actually the word branch isn’t capitalized anywhere in the W&T. So your question is moot, but since you insist, I will answer you anyway.

First off lets agree to accept the W&T as an absolute authority. Right? OK then.

The original language of the W&T is Arabic. In regards to genealogy, the Arabic words used in the Will and Testament are:

GHUSN, translated as “branch” the plural of ghusn is AGHSAN translated as “Branches” (this refers to more than one branch)

AFNAN, translated as “twigs” the singular of Afnan is Fann, but this word does not appear in the Arabic W&T instead the Arabic word `FAR is the word that is translated as “twig”

Now to show the usage of these words:

On page 11 of the Will and Testament, where it says — in specific reference to Shoghi Effendi — that he is “the sign of God, the chosen branch” the Arabic word translated as branch is: GHUSN (singular of Aghsan) The Covenant itself says that Shoghi Effendi is a GHUSN. According to the Covenant itself: Shoghi Effendi is a BRANCH there can be no argument, this is really “end of story” right here, but I’ll explain a little more:

The W&T refers repeatedly to Shoghi Effendi’s genealogy from both the Divine Lote Tree of the Manifestation of the Bab and the Divine Lote Tree of the Manifestation of Baha’u'llah — the Twin Holy Trees. (this is a unique genealogy that is not shared by the guardians after Shoghi Effendi)

This is because Shoghi Effendi’s mother was descended from Baha’u'llah and his father was descended (collaterally) from the Bab.

The collateral descendants of the Bab are not referred to as twigs because they are twigs on the tree of Baha’u'llah. They are referred to as “twigs” because they are not direct sons, or branches, on the family tree of the Bab, they are collateral descendents through the Bab’s wife and mother, hence they are termed “Afnan.” (The Bab had no children, male or female, who survived infancy.)

Shoghi Effendi bears the title Afnan and Aghsan because he is descended from both the tree of the Bab and of Baha’u'llah.

On page 11, where the translation reads “youthful branch” the word ghusn does not appear, neither does any Arabic word for “youthful” instead the only word that appears there is the word `Far, translated elsewhere as twig.

The term twig or twigs, `Far or Afnan, is a designation of those who are collateral descendents of the Bab. This means that page 11 of the W&T is specifically referring to Shoghi Effendi only. This does not include any of the non-Afnan guardians who come after him.

It is on page 11 of the W&T, talking specifically about Shoghi Effendi, that the guardian is granted infalliblity. This is how and why we know that the “guardians” to come after Shoghi Effendi, who are not his sons — adopted or natural, are not infallible. They have right to the hereditary position of president of the UHJ but they are not Shoghi Effendi’s successors.

The Covenant doesn’t provide them with infallibility, only Shoghi Effendi and the true UHJ.

***

The doctrine of the Marangella group is that as soon as a guardian appoints the next guardian the the “mantle of the guardianship” leaves him and passes immediately to the next one. This reasoning is used to explain away Joel Marangella’s violation in usurping the guardianship from Mason Remey while Mason was alive.

However, if this reasoning is true, then in 1951 when Shoghi Effendi appointed Mason as the guardian in appointing him the president of his IBC the mantle of guardianship would have left Shoghi Effendi at that time and passed to Mason. Neither the behavior of Shoghi Effendi nor Mason Remey between 1951 and 1957 supports this doctrine.

It is a false doctrine. Marangella violated the Covenant and is a false claimant to the guardianship.

***

There is more…

In another Orthodox post, it was said:

“… they [the BUPC] have so many teachings that are not found explicitly in the Baha’i texts.” and “I also find it curious that they seem unwilling to respond to my questions.”

What teachings of the BUPC do you find contrary to Baha’i as you know it? What questions haven’t been responded to? Were they finally answered by Peace144?

It seems you’re trying to identify the right group just by the hereditary guardianship. I noted that on AOL Peace explained the criteria of being first a son and then appointed, and that Joel Marangella was not a son. Further, Joel’s proclamation posted by Brent Reed makes it obvious Mason later appointed someone other than Joel.

In addition to this there is another method for sorting out who is right with the Covenant and who is not. The only entity that could succeed Shoghi Effendi is the UHJ that is set up in accordance with his instructions (in any of its stages of development). Mason Remey was not Shoghi Effendi’s successor. Shoghi Effendi is not succeeded by another person but by this institution.

(We do not teach that Dr. Jensen was Shoghi Effendi’s successor. His purpose was to reinstitute the Covenant that the Hands, and everybody else, thumbed their noses at. The enthusiasm and dedication to the Covenant that you see from the BUPC is due to his having instilled that into us.)

If you investigate you will find that the Marangella group has ignored Shoghi Effendi’s instructions regarding the UHJ. They have no UHJ in any of its stages. Rather, their claimant to the guardianship is their focus and their leader — as if he is the successor to Shoghi Effendi as the spiritual leader of the Faith!

The writings are clear that the UHJ is the successor after Shoghi Effendi to the spiritual leadership of the Faith and not any one person.

The BUPC do have faith in Shoghi Effendi’s guidance. We do follow his instructions in setting up the UHJ. This process was already begun by Dr. Jensen.

There are other groups out there but none of them acknowledge Joseph Pepe Remey as the successor to Mason Remey in the guardianship. None of them understand that, after Shoghi Effendi, the guardians are only the president of the UHJ, that they are not heir to Shoghi Effendi’s station and position, that they are not infallible and that they are not the spiritual head of the Faith. Finally, none of them have any interest or even recognize the importance of setting up the UHJ in stages as Shoghi Effendi instructed.

They are outside of the guidance of the Covenant but if you obey the Covenant you will be guided to the truth.

***

There is a difference between position in the administration and spiritual station. Some Baha’is seem to think that once they have been appointed or elected to a position that they have won their station. As if being elected to an assembly or being appointed bestows anything other than a job to do, an opportunity to serve the Cause. Of course, the only way to get a station is to EARN the one that God has set aside for you. But the history of Covenant-breaking has been a history of mis-guided individuals who thought that they could actually gain something spiritually, a station, by jostling for a high position, even if it meant squeezing out someone else. As if God isn’t watching us. So they trade the possible station they could have had for a few years of paltry seeming glory, on this earth. Some Baha’is have the confused idea that appointment to the Guardianship or election to the UHJ would give them a magic pipeline to God and so they seek to achieve such positions. SAD!

***

In a letter from Joseph Pepe Remey, Mason’s adopted son, he wrote:

“However, Donald Harvey has received from me a statement in Mason’s hand in which, he repudiated his appointment of Joel as his successor back in 1963 . . . that is soon after we met with Joel here.”

In 1967 Mason Remey made a decoy appointment of Donald Harvey to the guardianship. In a letter addressed to Mrs. Timmerman dated August 18th, 1967, Mason wrote, “The reason that I announced Donald Harvey to be my successor was to discourage those who were hoping to become Guardian of the Faith and who were intent on building themselves up to fill this position.”

Joel’s claim is based on one of many appointments to guardianship by Mason Remey. These many appointments were deliberate tests to see if the believers would go according to the Covenant and Will and Testament.

They think Mason claimed the guardianship without being an actual son but this is incorrect. Mason was adopted by `Abdu’l-Baha as his real son.

Where do we find that Mason ever referred to Joel as his son?
Where do we find that Mason ever legally adopted Joel as his son?
Where do we find that Mason bequeathed the hair and blood to Joel?
Where do we find that Mason bequeathed anything to Joel?

The “Orthodox” Baha’is claim that as soon as Joel was appointed Mason ceased to be the guardian. According to such reasoning Shoghi Effendi ceased to be the guardian in 1951 when he appointed Mason. This doctrine is ludicrous and is merely a pretext to discredit Mason’s other appointments to the guardianship that are in competition with Joel and to refute Mason’s own cancellation of his appointment of Joel.