Re: Please do this beneficial service for yourselves.

"Harold Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

> 1. That 'Abdu'l-Baha had intended the appointment of the second Guardian
to
> be announced before the passing of Shoghi Effendi and that this provision
> either excluded making this knowledge known to the wider Baha'i community
or
> Shoghi Effendi was unable to inform the wider Baha'i community, or any of
> the Hands of the Cause of God (including his wife) of this exciting news
> between first making it known and his passing away.


Somebody told me that the Baha'i religion seems suited to lawyers because so
much of it
is concerned with laws and procedures and legal arguments.

This is a good example.  The Will and Testament calls upon the Guardian to
appoint a successor "in his own lifetime."  What is the meaning of this?  To
me, it cannot mean anything EXCEPT that it precludes an appointment by a
Will so "that differences may not arise after his passing."  Obviously, one
must write a Will during one's own lifetime because it is too late to write
a Will after you have passed away.  If the Guardian was supposed to leave a
Will, it would be redundant to require that the Will be written during his
lifetime-- when else is he going to write a Will?  So "in his own lifetime"
must mean something.

Legally, a Will has no force or effect whatsoever during the life of the
testator.  Nobody can make a claim against it or rely upon it.  That Will
can be revoked or modified at any time while the testator is living.
However, it does become irrevocable and comes into full force and effect at
the moment of the testator's death.  Thus, an appointment in a Will is made
AFTER one's lifetime, not during one's lifetime.

An appointment made during one's lifetime must be made other than by Will.
This is clearly intended by Abdu'l-Baha, since he has created a procedure
whereby the Hands affirm the appointment.  Thus a public announcement during
the lifetime of the sitting Guardian is contemplated.




> 2. That a second Guardian of the Faith had, after the passing of Shoghi
> Effendi and before the conclave of the Hands of the Cause of God, given
new
> guidance to the Hands of the Cause of God which relieved them of their
duty
> to "assist National Spiritual Assemblies of the Bahá'í world" with "the
> primary obligation to watch over and insure protection to the Bahá'í world
> community", and that the Hands of the Cause of God had rejected this new
> guidance.

There is ample evidence of this from the words of the second Guardian.

The Daily Observations is a diary by Mason Remey of the efforts he made to
persuade the Hands
that their position was wrong that the Guardianship had ended with the death
of Shoghi Effendi
http://members.iinet.net.au/~guardian/daily.observe.html

These three documents written by Mason Remey also demonstrate that the Hands
rejected the second Guardian.
http://bahai-guardian.com/appeals.html
http://bahai-guardian.com/announce.html
http://bahai-guardian.com/encyclical.html


> Should you be able to prove these two points, or otherwise explain the
> validity of this first paragraph which accuses the Hands of the Cause of
> God, Divinely appointed by the Guardian of the Faith, Shoghi Effendi, of
> ignorance, then there may be some merit in proceeding to see what the
second
> paragraph says.

If you are investigating in good faith, then you should direct your
investigation back onto the Hands.  What authority did they have to take
over the affairs and claim to have succeeded to the powers of the Guardian?
The message you quoted from Shoghi Effendi about protecting the Faith does
not grant the Hands administrative authority.to expel the Guardian and take
over the Faith, and that is exactly what they did.  Indeed, the book
Ministry of the Custodians memorializes in detail these outrageous actions
taken by the Hands.

Jeffrey