The Baha'i Studies Listserv
There's also Rex King's Regency claim ans the Tarbiyat Baha'i community. Even though they tend to be grouped as Remeyite, they technically believe he was a Regent and not the Second Gaurdian. Don Calkins wrote: > Seems to me that one of your articles should at least touch on the claim that various pretenders to the station of Guardian are legitimized thru' being "adopted" into the Aghsan... One of the interesting things is, as I see it, that Remey never made the argument himself; it's been Marengella and his followers and schismatics. Dear Don: The implications of the Master establishing the Guardianship as a "hereditary office" are described here: http://bahai-covenant.blogspot.com/2009/03/spiritual-and-physical-requirements-for.html I never quote from CB documents, unless Shoghi Effendi or the Hands or the House of Justice has quoted from them, and I urge the same posture here on this list, i.e. not quoting CB materials later in this discussion. Shoghi Effendi quotes Khayrullah in God Passes By; the Hands quote Remey in Ministry of the Custodians, and the House of Justice quotes Remey in one of its letters, and our quoting those materials will, on the other hand, strengthen the readership in the Covenant. The matter of the hereditary nature of the office of Guardian is well settled as I explain here, quoting the Hands: http://bahai-covenant.blogspot.com/2009/03/must-guardian-of-cause-be-descendant-of.html This posting thoroughly addresses the subject that the Guardian must be the descendant of the Manifestation: http://bahai-covenant.blogspot.com/2009/04/mason-remey-covenant-breaker.htm and includes this explanation of the implication of Remey not making his claim until a full two years after Shoghi Effendi's passing: Yawning Inconsistencies in the Conduct of Mason Remey Since Mason Remey had concocted this claim, he either had to admit that he did not know during that entire two-year period that he was the Guardian, which was inconsistent with his claim to be the infallible interpreter of the Word of God; or he had to say that he had known, and he was hiding this from the Baha'i world, which was inconsistent with his claim to be the infallible protector of the Cause of God. In both cases, it is impossible that a true Guardian of the Cause would conduct himself as Mason Remey did. In letters written on his behalf, Shoghi Effendi had stated that the Guardian of the Cause “is guided in his decisions to do that which protects it [the Baha'i Faith] and fosters its growth and highest interests," and that the Guardian of the Cause “is infallible in the protection of the Faith." The divinely-guided Guardian of the Cause always acts in the best interests of the Faith, and is infallible in its protection. Mason Remey claims to have been the Guardian of the Cause throughout 1958 and 1959, when he was one of the Hands of the Cause of God, whose actions during that period he later condemned. How could he condemn his own actions, which he claimed were divinely guided? How could the divinely-guided Guardian of the Cause act against the Faith's best interests for two years? If he was divinely-guided, why didn't he recognize from the outset that the direction the Hands were taking was the wrong one? How could the divinely-guided Guardian of the Cause not know that he was the Guardian? How could he claim that the designation of him as the Interpreter of the Word of God was hidden in the messages of Shoghi Effendi, when he himself had missed their import? How could he be the infallibly-guided Guardian, yet formally and repeatedly deny that there was a Guardian? How could he be infallible in the protection of the Faith, yet withhold his identity as the divinely guided one—the essence of protection of the Faith—from the believers? And how could he be the successor to Shoghi Effendi, when he even denied that Shoghi Effendi was the Guardian, stated that Shoghi Effendi had grievously misinterpreted the Master's Will, and undertook to undo Shoghi Effendi's entire life work? This is sheer nonsense. Mason Remey's selfish motives are transparent. It is quite astonishing that anyone ever accepted his claims. ------ Nothing is more explicit and more clear than the successorship in the Baha'i Faith, and that is addressed here http://bahai-covenant.blogspot.com/2009/03/unmistakable-clarity-of-covenant.html Brent __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[email protected] Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[email protected] Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [email protected] Or subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[email protected] Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/?forum=bahai-st News (on-campus only) - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[email protected] Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[email protected] Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [email protected] Or subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[email protected] Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/?forum=bahai-st News (on-campus only) - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
