A document entitled "Mason Remey and Those Who Followed Him"
was circulated on America Online (in the Bahá’í File Library under "Remey
Covenant Breakers")in late 2000. The following is the official response
from the Mother Bahá’í Council of the
_____
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 inasmuch 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 Bahá'u'lláh but they turn away from the Centre of the Cause--in
the day of the Centre of the Covenant, ‘Abdu'l-Bahá, and in our day, the
Guardian--and thereby they deny what they profess to accept."
*****
It is true
that ‘Abdu'l-Bahá 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-Bahá, 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
Bahá'u'lláh that the Kitab-iAqdas, Baha'ullah's Book of Laws, and the Will
and Testament of ‘Abdu'l-Bahá "are inseparable parts of one complete
unit." So who is it, then, that is in the process of exterminating
Baha'ullah'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-Bahá 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 Bahá’ís, 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 Bahá’í 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'ullah'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-Bahá'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-Bahá'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 Bahá’í 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! 'Abdu1.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 Baha. " 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 'Abdu1-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 not say that in his
Proclamation. Instead, he wrote: “Be it
understood. I, of myself, make no claims
for myself. I am but telling and
reminding the Hands of the Faith and the Bahá’ís of all the world of the responsibilities that the beloved Guardian
placed upon me as President of the Bahá’í International
Council.”
*****
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 Bahá’í 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 Bahá’ís 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
Of course, we, as Bahá’ís, 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 Bahá'u'lláh is not dependent upon the Bahá’ís. Rather the success of their efforts to establish His Administrative Order is dependent upon the power of the Covenant. Tbe 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-Bahá, as if this Order belonged to them. But the World Order of Bahá'u'lláh does not belong to the Bahá’ís, 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 Bahá'u'lláh," the Administrative Order of Bahau'1lah 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 Bahá’ís, would be well-advised to investigate this matter thoroughly and to seek out the truth for ourselves.
--The
Mother Bahá’í Council of the
Early in
2001