Friday, March 22, 2019

March 30. On this date in 1957, Amatu'l-Bahá Rúhíyyih Khánum wrote "People who have withdrawn from the Cause because they no longer feel that they can support its Teachings and Institutions sincerely, are not Covenant-breakers--they are non-Bahá'ís and should just be treated as such. Only those who ally themselves actively with known enemies of the Faith who are Covenant-breakers, and who attack the Faith in the same spirit as these people, can be considered, themselves, to be Covenant-breakers."



March 30. On this date in 1957, Amatu'l-Bahá Rúhíyyih Khánum wrote "People who have withdrawn from the Cause because they no longer feel that they can support its Teachings and Institutions sincerely, are not Covenant-breakers--they are non-Bahá'ís and should just be treated as such. Only those who ally themselves actively with known enemies of the Faith who are Covenant-breakers, and who attack the Faith in the same spirit as these people, can be considered, themselves, to be Covenant-breakers."
Haifa, Israel,
March 30, 1957
National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of Canada.
The beloved Guardian has instructed me to answer certain matters raised in your recent correspondence with him.
He is delighted to see that substantial progress is being made in Samoa. It is too early for him to say under whose administrative jurisdiction the Samoan Bahá'ís will come in the future. It will probably be Australia, but at the present time, these things have not been definitely settled.
DEFINITION OF COVENANT-BREAKING
People who have withdrawn from the Cause because they no longer feel that they can support its Teachings and Institutions sincerely, are not Covenant-breakers--they are non-Bahá'ís and should just be treated as such. Only those who ally themselves actively with known enemies of the Faith who are Covenant-breakers, and who attack the Faith in the same spirit as these people, can be considered, themselves, to be Covenant-breakers. As you know, up to the present time, no one has been permitted to pronounce anybody a Covenant-breakers but the Guardian himself.
With warm Bahá'í greetings, and assuring you all of his prayers for the success of your important work,
R. RABBANI

March 30. On this date in 1971, the Universal House of Justice wrote " Any believer who arises and leaves his home to journey to another country for the purpose of teaching the Cause is a pioneer. As you know, one of the objectives of every pioneer is to settle and become self-supporting, if possible. If the localities where this condition can be met are not the same as the goals of the National Assembly, such goals may have to be filled by the National Assembly making use of homefront pioneers. The friends are free to go wherever they like and even those supported by the Fund should not be subjected to rigid rules."





March 30. On this date in 1971, the Universal House of Justice wrote " Any believer who arises and leaves his home to journey to another country for the purpose of teaching the Cause is a pioneer. As you know, one of the objectives of every pioneer is to settle and become self-supporting, if possible. If the localities where this condition can be met are not the same as the goals of the National Assembly, such goals may have to be filled by the National Assembly making use of homefront pioneers. The friends are free to go wherever they like and even those supported by the Fund should not be subjected to rigid rules."
1938. Pioneer Status Clarified: Who is a Pioneer?
"The place of settlement of any pioneer depends on his circumstances. If therefore, he can not settle in the localities suggested by the receiving National Spiritual Assembly, this does not mean that he should not be considered a pioneer. Any believer who arises and leaves his home to journey to another country for the purpose of teaching the Cause is a pioneer.
"As you know, one of the objectives of every pioneer is to settle and become self-supporting, if possible. If the localities where this condition can be met are not the same as the goals of the National Assembly, such goals may have to be filled by the National Assembly making use of homefront pioneers. The friends are free to go wherever they like and even those supported by the Fund should not be subjected to rigid rules."
(From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to a National Spiritual Assembly, March 30, 1971)

March 30. On this date in 1965, the Universal House of Justice wrote "the beloved Guardian warned that the disintegrating process will penetrate deeper and deeper into the very core of human society and that much suffering is in store ere mankind is fused by the fires of universal affliction into one organic commonwealth. Even when universal suffrage and all other rights presently sought by civil rights movements are fully attained, there still remains for the Bahá'ís the unaccomplished task of cleansing humanity, by precept and example, of every trace of racial prejudice. Nothing but the Faith of God can accomplish this."





March 30. On this date in 1965, the Universal House of Justice wrote "the beloved Guardian warned that the disintegrating process will penetrate deeper and deeper into the very core of human society and that much suffering is in store ere mankind is fused by the fires of universal affliction into one organic commonwealth. Even when universal suffrage and all other rights presently sought by civil rights movements are fully attained, there still remains for the Bahá'ís the unaccomplished task of cleansing humanity, by precept and example, of every trace of racial prejudice. Nothing but the Faith of God can accomplish this."
456. Bahá'ís Have Task of Cleansing Humanity by Precept and Example
"In many letters and on many occasions the beloved Guardian warned that the disintegrating process will penetrate deeper and deeper into the very core of human society and that much suffering is in store ere mankind is fused by the fires of universal affliction into one organic commonwealth. Even when universal suffrage and all other rights presently sought by civil rights movements are fully attained, there still remains for the Bahá'ís the unaccomplished task of cleansing humanity, by precept and example, of every trace of racial prejudice. Nothing but the Faith of God can accomplish this."
(From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States, March 30, 1965: United States Supplement to Bahá'í News, No. 90, August 1965, p. 2)

March 30. On this date in 1949, Shoghi Effendi cabled "deeply grieved spiritual position German Bahá'í community steadily deteriorating" warning of several individuals including "granddaughter (of) SubhiAzal...mischiefmaking Orientals...sympathizers of Mrs. White or Sohrab or disloyal members (of) 'Abdu'l-Bahá's family, including my brother Hussein..."



March 30. On this date in 1949, Shoghi Effendi cabled "deeply grieved spiritual position German Bahá'í community steadily deteriorating" warning of several individuals including "granddaughter (of) SubhiAzal...mischiefmaking Orientals...sympathizers of Mrs. White or Sohrab or disloyal members (of) 'Abdu'l-Bahá's family, including my brother Hussein..."
TRANSMIT FOLLOWING GERMAN ASSEMBLY DEEPLY GRIEVED SPIRITUAL POSITION GERMAN BAHAI COMMUNITY STEADILY DETERIORATING. NATIONAL ASSEMBLY MUST ARISE LOYALLY VIGILANTLY ENERGETICALLY SAFEGUARD FAITH AND CONFIRM BELIEVERS IN COVENANTS BAHAULLAH ABDULBAHA. GRANDDAUGHTER SUBHIAZAL MUST BE SHUNNED ENTIRELY. HISTORY SOCIETY ACTIVITIES COMPLETELY DISASSOCIATED FROM FAITH. ANY MISCHIEFMAKING ORIENTALS MUST BE GUARDED AGAINST. SYMPATHIZERS OF MRS WHITE) OR SOHRAB OR DISLOYAL MEMBERS ABDULBAHAS FAMILY INCLUDING MY BROTHER HUSSEIN WHO MAY VISIT GERMANY THIS SUMMER MUST BE WATCHED AND WARNED AND IF NECESSARY EXPELLED. COMPROMISE INDECISION PROCRASTINATION WILL CAUSE CRISIS AS SERIOUS AS HERRIGELS. IF APPEAL UNHEEDED GREAT SUFFERING AND LOSS COMMUNITY WILL ENSUE THOUGH FAITH WILL EVENTUALLY TRIUMPH.
SHOGHI RABBANI

March 30. On this date in 1987, the Universal House of Justice responded to five questions by Robert Stauffer regarding the loss of voting rights, Mani, Magi, the five-pointed star, and Joseph Smith and the Mormons. The letter concluded with quotations on Confucianism and Genesis.



March 30. On this date in 1987, the Universal House of Justice responded to five questions by Robert Stauffer regarding the loss of voting rights, Mani, Magi, the five-pointed star, and Joseph Smith and the Mormons. The letter concluded with quotations on Confucianism and Genesis.

Five Questions:
Loss of Voting Rights, Mani, Magi, Five-Pointed Star, Joseph Smith

by / on behalf of Universal House of Justice

published in Bahá'í Studies Bulletin, 4:3-4:4
1991-01
first written or published 1987-03-30
Department of the Secretariat
30 March 1987Mr. Rob StaufferDear Bahá’í Friend,Your letter of 16 December 1986 was referred by the Universal House of Justice to the Research Department, which has prepared responses to your first and third questions. A copy of the Department’s memorandum is enclosed. In reply to your second question, we are instructed by the House of Justice to convey the following comments.No reply has been found to the letter written by the Spiritual Assembly of Seattle to the Guardian in the 1930s, to which you refer. It would sees, however, from the general tenor of the many letters written by the beloved Guardian on the matter of deprivation of voting rights, that, in principle at least, there are no exceptions to the guidance given in the letter quoted on pp. 51-52 of "Messages to Canada", namely:
"...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."
There are, however, many different ways In which this is applied, depending upon the nature of the offence and the situation in each case.For example, when there is an isolated, but serious offence, such as that of a Bahá’í woman who indulges in one act of Immorality as a result of which she gives birth to a child out of wedlock, this is no grounds for the removal of administrative rights. But the Assembly, when it learns of the situation should certainly arrange for the believer to be met and consulted with, to assist her in her difficulties, to ascertain her attitude to the situation. If she has no regret for the offence and indicates that she feels free to repeat it in future, she will need to be educated In the teachings, counselled and, if she does not change her attitude, to be warned that a continuation of such actions would cause forfeiture of her administrative rights. If, however, she is contrite and is determined to lead a moral life henceforth there would be no question of sanctions. The same course would be followed with the man involved if he were a Bahá’í.Another example would involve, not a single offence, but a continuing course of behaviour, such as flagrant and continuing violation of the law prohibiting the drinking of alcohol, or of involvement in political activities In such situations the Assembly should explain the law to the believer, urge him to obey it, encourage and assist him and warn him if necessary. If the response is favourable there would, again, be no need to deprive him of his administrative rights but, if the believer is obdurate or continues in his course of misbehaviour, he should, according to the circumstances of each case be warned and warned again, with increasing severity and, if this produces no amelioration, he would have to lose his administrative rights.A third example involves the taking of a definite step which violates a clear law with which the believer is familiar. Offences against the Bahá’í If of marriage mostly fall in this category. For example, if a believer enters into the married state (e.g. by having a civil wedding) without having a Bahá’í wedding, he must be instructed to immediately rectify the fault. This can often be achieved by having a Bahá’í ceremony without delay; however, there may well be obstacles to the marriage, such as a parent's refusal to give consent. If this consent is not forthcoming, enabling a Bahá’í ceremony to be held, the only solution is to have a divorce, and, pending this, the offender would have to be deprived of his administrative rights. This is not the place to go int all the complications that can arise in connection with breach of Bahá’í marriage law, but this example will suffice to illustrate the point that in such cases the deprivation of rights, while not being automatic, usually follows the offence more swiftly than in other kinds of offence.
    With loving Bahá’í greetings,
    For Department of the Secretariat
    Enclosure
M E M O R A N D U M
To: The Universal House of Justice
Date: 30 March 1987
From: The Research Department
QUESTIONS FROM MR. ROB STAUFFER
Mr. Rob Stauffer has raised several questions in a letter dated 16 December 1986. These questions have been referred to the Research Department for Study. We offer the following information.1. ManíWe have not been able to identify any reference to Man! in the letters written by or on behalf of the beloved Guardian.2. The MagiThe Research Department has identified two references to the Magi in Tablets written by ‘Abdu’1-Bahá. In one Tablet the Master expresses His hope that the recipient will be like tat heavenly star which guided the Magi to Christ. He states in the other that the Magi looked with the eye of truth and were able to discover the star which was an evidence of the birth of Christ. They were thus led to the Son of Truth.3. The Five-Pointed Star as a Symbol of the FaithAs Mr. Stauffer is no doubt aware, a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual and published in "Bahá’í News" 228 (February 1950) on page 4 states:
Strictly speaking the 5-pointed star is the symbol of our Faith, as used by the Bab and explained by Him.
A reference to the use by the Bab of the five-pointed star is made on page 69 of "God Passes By" (Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1974). However, the Research Department has not been able to identify the explanation to which Shoghi Effendi referred as the works of the Bab held at the World Centre are not as yet properly Indexed.4. Joseph Smith and the MormonsIn addition to the extracts regarding Joseph Smith and the Mormons published on pages 379 and 380 of "Lights of Guidance: A Bahá’í Reference File", comp. Helen Hornby (New Delhi: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1983), we share the following quotations from letters written on the Guardian's behalf to Individual believers:
Joseph Smith is nowhere mentioned in the Teachings. Some, however, of the Mormon doctrines are very close in spirit to our own beliefs, and the Mormons should prove a group veil worth teaching the Faith to.
    (28 September 1941)
As there is nothing specific about Joseph Smith in the Teachings, the Guardian has no statement to make on his position or about the accuracy of any statements in "The Book of Mormon" regarding American history or its peoples. This is a matter for historians to pass upon.
    (31 May 1946)
Mr. Stauffer may wish to take note of the final sentence in the extract above. In his letters, Shoghi Effendi often advised friends who asked similar questions to refer to experts or authoritative books on that subject. Three extracts from such letters written on the Guardian's behalf are enclosed herewith.Regarding the Magi, the Bahá’í World Centre Library has recommended the article in the "New Catholic Encyclopedia", vol. 9 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1967), pp. 60-5, as a good theological treatment of the subject. Other sources which provide interesting information are:
"The New Encyclopaedia Britannica", 15th ed., s.v. "agi", vol. 7, p. 671; and s.v. "Zoroastrianism and Parsiism", vol. 29, p. 1079."The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church", 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), p. 858."The Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary" (New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1965), pp. 349-50."The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church", 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), pp. 620-1.
These sources — particularly the "New Catholic Encyclopedia" — also provide information on Mini and Manichaeism, as does an article by Daniel Keith Conner, "Mani and Manichaeism: A Study in Religious Failure", World Order, vol. 11, no. 2 (Winter 1976-77), pp. 36-45.For further Information on Joseph Smith and Mormonism, the Research Department suggests Mr. Stauffer consult:
    William P. Collins, 'The Bahá’í Faith and Mormonism: A Preliminary Survey', World Order, vol. 15, nos. 1 * 2 (Fall 1980/Winter 1981), pp. 33-45;William P. Collins, 'The Bahá’í Faith and Mormonism: Further Reflections', World Order, vol. 17, no. 3 (Spring 1983), pp. 25-33;and the sources cited therein.
Enclosure"As regards Confucianism; the Teachings contain no data on this subject, and the Guardian would therefore advise that you refer to authoritative books regarding the history and teachings of this Faith."
    (From a letter dated 8 April 1939 written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer)
"Concerning your questions numbered 1, 2, 3, 6, about the Church and Christianity; as no detailed information is given in the Bahá’í teachings on these matters, the Guardian cannot answer you - this is for historians to prove and clarify."
    (From a letter dated 1 April 1946 written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer)
"We Bahá’ís do not believe in Genesis literally. We know this world was not created in seven days, or six, or eight, but evolved gradually over a period of millions of years, as science has proved. As to where the idea of a seven-day week originated it is certainly very ancient and you should refer to scholars for an answer."The Guardian suggests, if you want to be referred to works of reference regarding the early Christian Church, that you ask some university, or large library, to give you the names of suitable books to read."
    (From s letter dated 28 October 19A9 written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer)

March 30. On this date in 1980, the Universal House of Justice wrote "The picture on page 83 of William Miller's book is a portrait of Bahá'u'lláh, but different from the one displayed in the International Archives."






March 30. On this date in 1980, the Universal House of Justice wrote "The picture on page 83 of William Miller's book is a portrait of Bahá'u'lláh, but different from the one displayed in the International Archives."

One year later, on February 6, 1981, the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United State wrote (also here) "We would like to point out to you that the National Spiritual Assembly has no documentation verifying the authenticity of the illustrations in Mr. William McElwee Miller's book, and as such they cannot be regarded as being of Bahá'u'lláh and the Bab."
"We would like to point out to you that the National Spiritual Assembly has no documentation verifying the authenticity of the illustrations in Mr. William McElwee Miller's book, and as such they cannot be regarded as being of Bahá'u'lláh and the Bab."
Letter from the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States to an individual 6 February 1981
"The picture on page 83 of William Miller's book, but different from the one displayed in the International Archives."
Universal House of Justice to an individual 30 March 1980

March 30. On this date in 1997, an individual asked the Universal House of Justice about a possible a reference in the Kitab-i-Aqdas to the possible end of the Guardianship, and "the authority of the Hands to expel Covenant-breakers at a time when there was no Guardian alive."



March 30. On this date in 1997, an individual asked the Universal House of Justice about a possible a reference in the Kitab-i-Aqdas to the possible end of the Guardianship, and "the authority of the Hands to expel Covenant-breakers at a time when there was no Guardian alive."

Kitab-i-Aqdas and the Expulsion of Covenant Breakers

by / on behalf of Universal House of Justice

1997-06-04
Dear Bahá'í Friend,The Universal House of Justice has received your two emails of 27 and 30 March 1997 . . . It has instructed us to send you the following reply.With regard to your question relating to the provisions of Paragraph 42 of the Kitab-i-Aqdas and your understanding of notes 66 and 67, we are asked to stress that the notes should not be extrapolated beyond their obvious meaning. Paragraph 42 does not explicitly refer to the office of successorship in the Faith; it deals specifically with the authority for the disposition of endowments. It has implications for the successorship inasmuch as it envisages the possibility of a break in the line of Aghsan before the election of the Universal House of Justice, and provides that, in such an eventuality, the matter of endowments should be referred to those "who speak not except by His leave and judge not save in accordance with what God hath decreed in this Tablet...".Note 67 points to the events which actually took place following the passing of Shoghi Effendi before the election of the Universal House of Justice, inasmuch as, during that period, the affairs of the Cause were directed by the Hands of the Cause of God who have neither interpretative nor legislative authority and, indeed, "speak not except by His leave and judge not save in accordance with what God hath decreed...".As to the authority of the Hands of the Cause to assume the direction of the Faith following Shoghi Effendi's passing, the following points should be noted.The letter which you quote, written on behalf of the Guardian on 31 March 1949, some two years before the formal appointment of the Hands of the Cause, stated that "The Hands of the Cause will have executive authority in so far as they carry out the work of the Guardian." On 4 June 1957, some six years after the appointment of the first contingent of Hands of the Cause, and but four months before his passing, the Guardian referred to the "TWIN FUNCTIONS PROTECTING PROPAGATING FAITH BAHA'U'LLAH" invested in the Institution of the Hands of the Cause by "VIRTUE AUTHORITY CONFERRED TESTAMENT CENTRE COVENANT", and stated: "TO ITS NEWLY ASSUMED RESPONSIBILITY ASSIST NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLIES BAHA'I WORLD SPECIFIC PURPOSE EFFECTIVELY PROSECUTING WORLD SPIRITUAL CRUSADE PRIMARY OBLIGATION WATCH OVER ENSURE PROTECTION BAHA'I WORLD COMMUNITY IN CLOSE COLLABORATION THESE SAME NATIONAL ASSEMBLIES NOW ADDED."Although the authority to expel Covenant-breakers had been conferred upon the Hands of the Cause in the Will and Testament, the Guardian had reserved the exercise of this authority to himself during his lifetime. In his last message to the Bahá'í world in October 1957, when he appointed the last contingent of Hands, he characterized them as "the Chief Stewards of Bahá'u'lláh's embryonic World Commonwealth, who have been invested by the unerring Pen of the Centre of His Covenant with the dual function of guarding over the security, and of ensuring the propagation, of His Father's Faith." He referred further to "their sacred responsibility as protectors of the Faith", designating them "high-ranking officers of a fast evolving world Administrative Order" and members of "one of the cardinal and pivotal institutions" of the Faith.Equipped with such powers, and having been elevated to such a high position, the Hands of the Cause concluded that, among all the then existing institutions of the Faith, it was upon them, as Chief Stewards, that the responsibility for directing the affairs of the Cause rested pending the election of the Universal House of Justice.The body of the Hands of the Cause, at their first conclave, constituted a group of nine Hands to act as an executive nucleus and "conduct and protect the affairs of the Faith from its World Centre" [The Ministry of the Custodians, p. 39.] and "carry on from this Centre the provisions of the World Bahá'í Crusade".[The Ministry of the Custodians, p. 31.] These nine Hands were designated "The Custodians of the Bahá'í Faith" and, following legal advice, they immediately asked the twenty-six National Spiritual Assemblies operating at that time throughout the Bahá'í world to pass resolutions confirming their support of the Custodians, and to send letters to the World Centre pledging their allegiance. The text of the letters received are all published on pages 41 to 50 of The Ministry of the Custodians.It was on such a strong foundation of doctrinal and legal authority that the Hands of the Cause, and the nucleus of nine Custodians in the Holy Land, could bring the World Crusade of the beloved Guardian to its consummation, protect the Faith from the divisive effects of Mason Remey's unfounded claim to the Guardianship, and call for the election of the Universal House of Justice in 1963.Another question concerns the authority of the Hands to expel Covenant-breakers at a time when there was no Guardian alive and, more particularly, to expel Mason Remey from among their own ranks. The House of Justice feels that the above survey of events which transpired after the passing of Shoghi Effendi will assist in clarifying the position in which the Hands found themselves at the time of Mason Remey's disclosure of his claim. Looking at the situation purely in terms of the wording of the Master's Will and Shoghi Effendi's messages, it is evident that the Will gives the Hands the authority to expel those who "oppose and protest" against the Guardian and, by implication, those who "disobey" him and "seek division". The Hands of the Cause concluded that the very advancing of a claim to the Guardianship in conflict with the spirit and letter of the terms of the Will was a repudiation of the terms of a sacred document, the very charter on which the institution of the Guardianship rested.The objection raised by the Hand of the Cause Hasan Balyuzi, in his cable of 12 May 1960 and his letter of 15 May, should be read in its proper context. This objection was in response to the recommendation made by his fellow-Hand, Abu'l-Qasim Faizi, supported by Dr. Ugo Giachery, that the Hands of the Cause in the Holy Land immediately expel three members of the National Assembly of France for supporting and disseminating Mason Remey's claim, at a time when Mason Remey himself had not yet been declared a Covenant-breaker, and when the Hands still hoped that his action was the result of a mental aberration. The view of Mr. Balyuzi was supported by Dr. Adelbert Muhlschlegel. During the months of April and May, messages were still being received from the National Spiritual Assemblies around the world, rejecting Remey's claim and reaffirming their support of the Hands of the Cause. Mason Remey for his part compounded his offence by continuing to circulate his claims to the Bahá'ís, calling upon them to withdraw their support from the Hands, whom he stigmatized as Covenant-breakers, and to cease pursuing the goals of the Ten Year Crusade. On 7 July 1960, by which time the full gravity of the matter had been clearly established, the Custodians wrote to their fellow-Hands throughout the world, outlining the situation, recalling the authority given to the Custodians by the Hands as a body to expel Covenant-breakers, commenting that at that time the possibility of Covenant-breaking by one of the Hands themselves had not been contemplated, and asking the Hands as a body to decide whether they supported the recommendation for the immediate expulsion of Remey, or wished this whole question to be postponed until the holding of the Conclave in October.The response of the Hands was announced to the Bahá'í world in the cable of 26 July 1960: "ENTIRE BODY HANDS OBEDIENT PROVISIONS WILL TESTAMENT CENTRE COVENANT COMMUNICATIONS BELOVED GUARDIAN ENJOINING THEM PROTECT HOLY CAUSE ATTACKS ENEMIES WITHIN WITHOUT ANNOUNCE BAHA'I WORLD MASON REMEY COVENANT BREAKER EXPELLED FAITH...."The hesitation of the Hands to expel Mason Remey, and the objections to precipitate action raised by Mr. Balyuzi and Dr. Muhlschlegel, should not be taken as lack of confidence in the Hands' authority to expel Covenant-breakers, but as a further evidence of the continual care exercised by the Hands not to overstep the bounds of their authority in any individual instance.Mason Remey's subsequent acts showed the extent to which he would go in challenging the actions of Shoghi Effendi. For example, in a general letter of 12 November 1966 published in December 1966 he announced:
The first Guardian of the Faith so construed the Master 'Abdu'l- Baha's Will and Testament that he formed his Administration upon the Babi Faith and not upon the Bahá'í Faith. This mistake has caused so much confusion and misunderstanding and trouble that the only thing for the second Guardian to do, to set matters aright, is to discard all which Shoghi Effendi did and to institute a New Faith which shall be the Orthodox Faith of Bahá'u'lláh under the Holy Name of ABHA in order to carry out the conditions that will lead to the establishment of the TRUE Bahá'í Faith (of Bahá'u'lláh) which Faith has not yet been established in the world.
In another general 1etter dated 31 January 1967 he referred to "violations of the Faith that were made unwittingly by Shoghi Effendi".Subsequent developments are noted in a statement entitled "Mason Remey and those who followed him", of which we enclose a copy. . .
    With loving Bahá'í greetings,
    xxxx
    For Department of the Secretariat
    cc: International Teaching CentreEnclosure, "Mason Remey and those who followed him" [online at uhj_mason_remey_followers].