token
A Token of God’s Grace
by Glenn D. Goldman
Spring 2012
Introduction
This is the story of a token of God’s grace. It is the story of His immutable Will to bestow upon His creation the knowledge of His loving presence, were we to but keep our hearts open to this favor.
God’s love for us is real, yet we must be faithful enough to receive it. We do not want to be like petulant, ungrateful children who challenge our father’s patience. How many have professed loyalty, only to wax rebellious when the tests come!
God’s love for us is, indeed, like the love of a father. A loving father wants his children to be happy and joyful. A wise and loving father also wants his children to be spiritually strong because he knows that true happiness comes from a strong, moral core, able to withstand the onslaught of life’s tests. A good father doesn’t simply take a sink-or-swim approach concerning his children’s moral development. Rather, he is tuned-in and intervenes when necessary with instruction, guidance and occasional correction.
Without proper guidance, children are more likely to be burdened with the fetters of selfishness upon entering adult life. Similarly, without God’s spiritual guidance, we would end up leaving this world spiritually fettered. This is why God provides us with His grace:
Say: We, verily, believe in that which was revealed unto the Apostles of old, in that which hath been revealed, by the power of truth, unto ‘Alí, and in that which is now being revealed from His Throne of glory. Thus doth your Lord instruct you, as a sign of His favour and as a token of His grace that encompasseth all the worlds. – (Baha’u’llah, Surih of the Temple)
The instruction of God is a “token of His grace.” In this day, His unfailing guidance and spiritual protection comes from Baha’u’llah’s Throne of glory, and a branch of that unfailing guidance passes to the true Universal House of Justice (UHJ) with the Aghsan guardian at its head. In this way, the united UHJ, including all executive and legislative functions, is one of the tokens of God’s love and grace. It is the sovereign super-state of the World Order of Baha’u’llah (WOB), bestowed upon the peoples of the world for their ongoing instruction, material progress and spiritual protection.
The unfolding story of this Covenant involves another token: the token of the Hair and the Blood. It is a token of the Kingdom. As we will see, it symbolizes both the Aghsan guardianship and the body of the UHJ, joined together as the united House of the Lord. The Hair and Blood is a token of the token, as it were.
To paraphrase Shoghi Effendi, we still stand too close to the founding documents of the Kingdom to fully grasp their meaning and potency. What follows is but one person’s attempt to bring into sharper focus a single token from the boundless ocean of God’s Revelation.
Brief History of the Hair and Blood Token
This is what we know about the history of the token of the Hair and the Blood: It was in ‘Abu’l-Baha’s possession until He ascended on November 28, 1921. Then, it passed to Shoghi Effendi’s hands, and he delivered it to Mason Remey in March of 1922. When Mason died in 1974, it was left to Pepe, and shortly after Pepe died in 1994, one of Dr. Jensen’s students, Jim Fluri, traveled to Florence in order to recover it from Pepe’s residence. Upon arriving in the U. S., Jim delivered it to Dr. Jensen.
A few weeks prior to his passing in 1996, Doc was putting together his will. When the question of the Hair and Blood came up, he told his wife Wind, with two other witnesses present, that she was to deliver it into the hands of the next guardian. In 2009, Wind delivered the token of the Hair and Blood into my hands after concluding, based on all evidence available to her, that I was Pepe’s successor to the Aghsan guardianship.
The path of this token is one of the proofs and evidences of God’s indisputable dominion, if one has the eyes to see.
The Symbol of the “Right to the Kingdom”
In his 1st epistle to Pepe, Dr. Jensen explained that the Hair and Blood served as an important symbol:
Also when a man leaves an inheritance, even if it is a stone or a marker, to one he calls his son or daughter, in the Israeli law this confers upon him or her succession rights. As “of all the remnants of Baha’u’llah’s all-Sacred Person, the most hallowed, the most precious,” was delivered into the hands of your father Mason Remey, he then inherited the right to the kingdom of his father, ‘Abdu’l-Baha. (Dr. Jensen, 1st Epistle to Pepe)
Thus, the token of the Hair and Blood indicated that “succession rights” were conferred upon Mason Remey as inheritor of the “right to the kingdom of his father, ‘Abdu’l-Baha.” However, we know that Mason was not the successor to the infallibility. The successor to the infallibility was Shoghi Effendi, in accordance with the Will and Testament. What Mason inherited from ‘Abdu’l-Baha was the right to the throne of David, the rod of wood. This was the test of the dichotomy that Doc wrote about in the early 1990’s, after his 1st epistle to Pepe.
When Shoghi Effendi placed the token of the Hair and Blood in Mason Remey’s hands, he was not, by any means, conferring any kind of sovereignty or infallibility upon Mason. He could not do this, because according to the Will and Testament, the sovereignty of the WOB belonged only to the Guardianship of Shoghi Effendi, and then the united institutions of the Aghsan guardianship joined with the body of the UHJ. Shoghi remained the infallible Guardian of the Faith while placing in Mason’s hands the token as a sacred trust.
It was Mason’s duty to step into the role of guarding the Cause from within the institution of the embryonic UHJ. The institution of the Aghsan guardianship would have been inaugurated had Mason activated that first IBC by calling its first meeting immediately after the passing of Shoghi Effendi. Had he done this, and then submitted to that body’s youthful sovereignty, Mason would have fulfilled his sacred trust, and history would have unfolded quite differently. This was not meant to be, however. There were tests ahead.
Mason soon fell into violation. He began to pontificate through his writings as if he were the infallible leader of the faith. It was a grievous error on Mason’s part, and Doc played along in deference to the guardianship until his understanding evolved in the early 1990’s. Eventually, Doc came to the conclusion that the Aghsan guardian does not inherit the infallibility.
The confusion, however, continues to this day. What many of Doc’s students have failed to grasp is that while Baha’u’llah sat on the earthly throne of David, He has, as the Manifestation of God, a Divine Sovereignty that no mere Davidic king can ever share. Jesus Christ manifested the same Divine Sovereignty as Baha’u’llah, yet he did not sit on the throne of David, or any other earthly throne. Thus, even though Baha’u’llah inherited the earthly throne of David, His Throne of Glory is a Celestial Throne not bound by the limitations of any earthly institution, divinely covenanted, or otherwise.
The Davidic throne (rod of wood) continues through the Aghsan guardianship. There is a reason why the person seated on the throne of David is now called “guardian” and not “King.” The guardian is not “King of the World.” That would be far too much power for one mortal to assume. The title “Guardian” makes it clear that he is not the sovereign of the world.
The executive functions of the united UHJ belong to the guardianship. It is the guardian’s role to 1) shepherd the membership of the legislative body into meetings and to preside over those meetings; 2) execute the will of the legislative body; and 3) serve as head of state1 by diffusing the “divine fragrances” of the legislative body. “[T]he Guardian of the Cause of God is its sacred head and the distinguished member for life of that body,” according to the Will and Testament. He is not, however, its lord and master. He himself is one member, subject to the will of the majority like all other members. In all of his functions, he is fully subject to the rule of law. There is no “divine right of the guardian.”
Mason had the right to inherit the executive functions granted to the Aghsan guardianship. However, before God would allow any Aghsan guardian to assume those sacred functions, the guardianship itself had to undergo important tests.
Because the position of guardianship still carries with it a potential for an abuse of power, God had to 1) provide important tests to emphasize to the people the limitations of power set on the Aghsan guardianship, and 2) provide important tests of character to the guardians themselves such that they understand what it means to be subordinate to the High Priest, and by extension, the will of the body.
Symbol of Adoption, not Appointment
When Dr. Jensen said that the Hair and Blood symbolized that Mason “inherited the right to the kingdom of his father,” he was saying that Mason had the right to the Davidic throne, and thus claim the guardian’s functions within the united Universal House of Justice, provided he was in harmony with the Covenant. After receiving the token,
. . . [a]ll that was left to be done to be in accordance with the Sacred Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Baha and to be the succeeding guardian was to be appointed during the lifetime of Shoghi Effendi. (Dr. Jensen, 1st Epistle to Pepe)
In other words, the token was not the appointment. Yet it did serve a vital symbolic role in the unfolding story of the Covenant.
Although he never actually stated outright that it was an appointment in accordance with the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, we now recognize Shoghi’s Effendi’s appointment of Mason to the presidency of the first IBC to be a legitimate appointment as rightful heir to the Aghsan guardianship.
Dual Symbolism of the Hair and Blood
The token of the Hair and Blood serves as a symbol of both the executive guardianship and the legislative body of the UHJ. It must be emphasized that, in fact, there is no separation between the institutions. One institution does not exist without the other. There is only one Baha’i super-state that holds sovereignty. The Hair and Blood represents this reality by serving as a symbol of both the executive and legislative functions unified in one token.
Before we discuss how the token symbolizes each institution, we have to take a look at the unique nature of each institution. The first we’ll discuss is the Aghsan guardianship. The guardian has three broad executive functions, all of which are subordinate to the rule of law. These functions are 1) calling and presiding over meetings of the body, as president of the legislative/deliberating body; 2) carrying out the will of the body as chief executive, assisted by the Hands; and 3) diffusing the divine fragrances of the body as the head of state, assisted by the Hands. He also has one legislative function: he is a member of the legislative body for life with a vote of one. When we refer to the guardianship, we are referring to the three executive functions of the guardianship. When the guardian is voting, he is acting as a general member of the body.
When speaking of the “body of the UHJ,” we are referring to the legislative/deliberative function of the super-state. Its general members are initially appointed (first by Shoghi Effendi, then the Lamb), and in its mature state it is elected from the nations of the world. The executive guardian is member for life of the body, and has a vote of one. Among the roles of the body of the UHJ are: guidance of its own development, interpreting the Word, passing of laws for the common weal, ruling on important matters that come before it, and disciplining its own members.
Mason received the token of the Hair and Blood as the symbol of the guardianship.
Without this physical token being given to Mason, it would have been nearly impossible for Doc to convincingly prove that Mason was an Aghsan. The token was the pivotal piece of institutive evidence for the adoption.
In addition, without it, the “spiritual son” concept would have held much more sway. This was the false argument put forth by the false guardians Donald Harvey and Joel Marengella and their followers, which states that the reference to “another Ghusn” in the Will and Testament is not a Covenant provision that the succeeding guardian must be a “real son,” as Dr. Jensen taught. Rather, this false doctrine states that it is merely a vague reference to an alleged spiritual relationship between the former guardian and the succeeding guardian.
Finally, without the proof supplied through the potency of this symbol, Pepe would have never accepted that he was an Aghsan, he would have never felt compelled to appoint a successor, and the guardianship would have come to an end.
Referring to the symbolism of the token, Dr. Jensen wrote in the first paragraph of his 1st Epistle to Pepe:
We gathered that the "blood" represented the blood line of the Davidic kings passed down from the male (sperm) descendants of King David seated on the throne, to the last one of that line of the tribe of Judah to sit upon the throne: 'Abdu'l-Baha. (Dr. Jensen, 1st Epistle to Pepe, June 8, 1989)
In 1989, in his 3rd Epistle to Pepe, he wrote:
What Mason inherited from his father, 'Abdu'l-Baha, was Aghsan blood; representing the AGHSAN blood line, and the hair, growing on the head, represents the headship or the presidency of the IBC, the embryonic UHJ. What Mason received when he inherited the token was the AGHSAN lineage. At this moment the AGHSAN LINEAGE passed from 'Abdu'l-Baha's reproductive organ to his adopted son, and the sceptre of the Davidic Kingship departed from the Tribe of Judah to the Gentile. (Dr. Jensen, Third Epistle to Pepe, Dec. 7, 1989)
As a token of the Aghsan guardianship, Doc says that the Hair symbolizes the “presidency” of the embryonic UHJ. That is one of its executive roles. It’s reasonable to conclude that the Hair also represents the guardian’s other executive roles: chief executive and head-of-state. The Blood symbolizes the Davidic King Aghsan lineage from Baha’u’llah. However, we have to keep in mind that it’s just a symbol. Mason did not biologically inherit Aghsan Blood. He was adopted, or grafted into the family tree. Yet ‘Abdu’l-Baha did not just pull someone off the street to adopt as his “real son.” He chose a deepened Baha’i who had demonstrated his faith sufficiently to earn the repeated eulogies of ‘Abdu’l-Baha. Mason Remey was a gentile who was graciously grafted (adopted) into the Aghsan family tree as a result of his faith and sacrifice for the Cause.
In the early 1990’s, Doc’s understanding of the Covenant deepened, paving the way for a new understanding of the token. By 1994, his explanation of the token had changed in a subtle, though important, way:
What you inherited from Mason was the Hair and the Blood; the hair symbolizing the headship of the Universal House of Justice, and the blood, the blood line of David, as Baha'u'llah was a male sperm-descendant of King David, seated on the throne of David. (Dr. Jensen, Letter to Pepe, Feb. 14th, 1994)
By this time, he is referring to the Blood as a symbol of the “bloodline of David” more generally, as opposed to the “Aghsan Lineage,” which refers more specifically to the line of Davidic guardians descended directly from Baha’u’llah.
Doc’s initial explanation that the Hair and Blood are both symbols referring to the Aghsan guardianship was the truth, but not the full picture. In light of our new understanding of the Covenant, we add a new explanation to our understanding of the token: It is also a symbol of the body of the UHJ, with the executive guardian as member for life. To understand how this is true, we need to examine the symbolism of the Blood.
As stated, by 1994 Doc was teaching that the Blood symbolized “the blood line of David…”
We must ask ourselves, “Where else have we heard of blood being the symbol of a son of David?”
At the Last Supper, Jesus Christ says, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.” (Mark 14:24)
Jesus and Baha’u’llah are the two Christs: male (sperm) descendants of King David anointed with the Holy Spirit. The Blood of Jesus Christ is the same as the Blood of Baha’u’llah. The Blood of Christ is the symbol of the “grafting in through faith” principle and is demonstrated through sacrifice. Jesus Christ brought this Covenant to the world as the authority to appoint apostles and the grafting in of the gentiles into the multitude-of-nations covenant through faith.2 Baha’u’llah brought this Covenant to the world as the grafting in of Mason Remey by ‘Abdu’l-Baha, thus passing the rod of wood to an adopted son. In this way, a gentile was grafted into the Davidic covenant through faith.
Thus, as the token of the guardianship, it symbolizes the executive branch of the united UHJ. In this context, the Hair symbolizes the executive functions, and the Blood symbolizes the grafting-in principle concerning the Davidic covenant (rod of wood).3
As token of the body of the UHJ, it symbolizes the legislative function of the UHJ. In this context, the Hair represents the executive guardian as member for life of the legislative body, and the Blood symbolizes the grafting-in principle, this time with regard to the membership of the body, which is the multitude of nations covenant (rod of iron). The members of the body are appointed at first, and eventually elected.
Together, “in close union and harmony,”4 these institutions are transmuted into the rod of gold, represented by the two-in-one token of the Hair and Blood.
Shoghi Effendi’s “Prerogative”
In his 3rd epistle to Pepe, Dr. Jensen wrote:
Shoghi Effendi recognized this adoption way back in 1922 when he gave Mason his token of inheritance. Shoghi Effendi was a member of the Holy household on his mother’s side. ‘Abdu’l-Baha in His Will and Testament, not only appointed Shoghi as the guardian of the Cause of God, but also left him all his possessions. It was Shoghi’s prerogative for him to see that all the family members received their specific inheritance from ‘Abdu’l-Baha. “To ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s ‘dear son’ Mr. Charles Mason Remey” he left “Coagulated drops of Baha’u’llah’s All-Sacred Blood and Ringlets of His most Blessed Locks presented as my most precious possession….as a token of my Baha’i affection and brotherly love; and further: Of all the remnants of Baha’u’llah’s all-Sacred person, the most hallowed, the most precious, confidently delivered into the hands of my brother and co-worker in the Cause, Mr. Remey”.—Shoghi, March, 1922. Thus Mason received his token of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s inheritance through Shoghi Effendi. (Dr. Jensen, 3rd Epistle to Pepe, Dec. 7, 1989)
This describes Shoghi Effendi as having the “prerogative . . . to see that all the family members received their specific inheritance. . .” But notice that this is not a matter of Shoghi Effendi’s personal whim. Dr. Jensen makes it clear that the token of the Hair and Blood was delivered to Mason Remey specifically because Shoghi “recognized [the] adoption way back in 1922.” In other words, Shoghi Effendi, through this act, clearly and transparently confirmed Abdu’l-Baha’s publicly announced will to adopt Mason.
Further, Shoghi Effendi was the infallible Guardian of the Baha’i Faith, according to ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s Will and Testament. It was his “prerogative” (meaning exclusive right or privilege) to carry out and affirm the Master’s wishes.
Pepe’s Non-Baha’i Executor
Now some would have us believe that there is a parallel between Shoghi Effendi’s act of giving Mason the token of the Hair and the Blood, and an act on the part of the non-Baha’i executor of Pepe’s secular will. After Pepe’s passing in 1994, his sister Anna, acting as the executor of his secular will, contacted Dr. Jensen because she had been instructed by Pepe to deliver his Baha’i materials into the hands of the “true Baha’is.” In response, Dr. Jensen sent his wife Wind along with Neal Chase to Anna’s home in New Jersey to claim the guardian’s things. Some time during that visit, Anna gave Neal a ring belonging to Pepe. Shortly after their return to Missoula, Dr. Jensen instructed Neal to place the ring in the box with the rest of the guardian’s things, which he did.
Neal and his followers claim that Anna’s act of giving him Pepe’s ring was as significant as Shoghi Effendi delivering the Hair and Blood into the hands of Mason. Let’s consider this for a moment.
Whereas Shoghi Effendi was the infallible Guardian of the Faith, Anna was not infallible at all. In fact, she was not even a Baha’i. Further, Wind was not present during the transaction involving the ring, so there were no witnesses other than Neal and Anna. Thus, we have no way of knowing Anna's intent, let alone Pepe’s. Did Pepe instruct Anna to give the ring specifically to Neal? If so, where is the evidence indicating this to be true? Even if this were true, where is the record indicating the significance this ring held for Pepe?
Absent such evidence, it is more reasonable to conclude that the transaction was a personal gesture on Anna’s part. Such a gesture would certainly carry no significance vis-à-vis the Covenant, seeing as she had no Baha'i authority to adopt Neal into the Aghsan line, let alone “anoint” him guardian, or somehow interpret Pepe’s intentions vis-à-vis the Covenant.
Further, Shoghi Effendi, the infallible Guardian, left a record of his intent in giving Mason the token of the Hair and Blood (i.e. through the message on the packet, he makes it clear that this is a token of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s adoption of Mason). Again, Neal can show no record of Anna's intent in giving him the ring, let alone Pepe’s intent.
The argument of Neal and his followers seems to be that because Anna was the secular executor of Pepe’s will, anything that she did with his possessions, even out of personal whim, was as if Pepe did it himself. However, this is an imaginary contrivance, contrary to the way that secular law looks upon the matter. In fact, the main reason for contesting wills is the accusation that the executor is acting improperly (Bishop, Tim. “Contesting a Will – Are the Executors of a Will Acting Improperly?” http://articles.submityourarticle.com/Tim-Bishop-6385/contesting-a-will-130394.php).
Thus, even if one puts forth the dubious argument that Anna was acting as executor of Pepe’s will when she gave Neal the ring, the gesture is meaningless for us as a token of Baha’i adoption, let alone as a token of appointment, because secular executors are not considered infallible actors in the eyes of the law. Unless there is some heretofore unrevealed evidence that it was Pepe’s specific intention for Anna to deliver this ring into Neal’s hands, and that this ring carried a special significance for Pepe, Neal’s assertion that Anna’s bestowal carries any Baha’i significance is put to rest.
Token of Adoption, Not Appointment
Shoghi Effendi, according to the W&T, was responsible for appointing his successor as Guardian of the Cause of God in his lifetime. Doc taught that this was accomplished when Shoghi appointed Mason president of the embryonic UHJ. As stated above, the token of the Hair and Blood did not represent the appointment of Mason, but rather his adoption into the Aghsan lineage.
Thus, there was no token involved in Mason’s appointment by Shoghi Effendi. Further, there was no token involved in the appointment of Pepe either. Doc told the story of the medallion, in which Mason made clear that this was not the method of appointment, but that the believers would know who the next guardian was by who was in possession of the medallion. So Pepe was explicitly not appointed through the passing of a token. Rather, he was appointed in two written documents that listed three individuals, including himself.
Pepe mentions these appointment documents in a letter to Brent Mathieu. From Pepe's March 30, 1991 letter to Brent:
It may seem presumptuous to you that I would have wished Donald had consulted with me regarding his choice of successor. He came to me to discuss the matter of his own acceptance of the Guardianship after Mason's death because he realized Mason may have left me some document after his appointment of Donald. It was then I gave him the two papers -- one typed by me and signed by Mason; the other in Mason's handwriting listing the three preferences for successorship he desired, i. e. no. 1 -- Joseph Pepe, no. 2 Donald Harvey, no. 3 - Joel Marangella. You must always keep in mind Mason lived with the thought he might have experienced the Great Global Catastrophe and he feared many would be killed and that the Baha'i fold might have to exist separated for a period of time and that with many possible guardians alive after the catastrophe, believers existing at great distances would have a guardian to turn to. There might be 2, 3, or 4 Guardians living and functioning contemporaneously during those trying times. That all made sense to me then -- as it does now --- yet it caused great confusion and consternation in the minds of many who, not understanding the reasons that prompted Mason to solve the problem by such means, considered him "berserk" or not in his right mind. All these years since his death, knowing his desire to have me succeed him, I have always felt it my duty and obligation to him, to contribute in every way towards his goals.
Although these important documents mentioned by Pepe seem to be lost to history, we know that Mason also names Pepe in his will as the inheritor of all of Mason’s possessions, both “tangible and intangible.” His “tangible” possessions included the Hair and Blood token. Undoubtedly, the title of “Aghsan Guardian” would constitute Mason’s most important “intangible” possession.
Pepe was Mason’s first choice to be appointed guardian, he inherited Mason’s “tangible” possessions (which included the Hair and Blood token) and his “intangible” possessions (which included Mason’s title of guardianship), and he was the only Aghsan who was appointed, making Pepe the only rightful successor to Mason.
Pepe’s “TOKEN(S)”
Pepe obviously had the idea of a token in mind when considering his own successor. On Sept. 10, 1990, two months before my initial correspondence with him, Pepe wrote to Brent Mathieu:
Dear Brent,
I am giving you one of many letters I found among Mason Remey's old correspondence. You will see this one dates back to 1906.
I am sending you this letter as a "TOKEN" to prove to you that I DO understand your spirituality for, your last letter (The better half) convinces me that, though some four score years separate you from Mr. Thomas R. Galbraith, who wrote the enclosed letter to Mr. Remey, nevertheless, you share a spiritual affinity" with each other and, no doubt, your souls have sapped from similar spiritual sources.
The language of Mr. Galbraith's letter is in total contrast to the language of a man like Leland Jensen who is, perhaps, as much inspired (or fired) with religious -- not spiritual -- enthusiasm as Mr. Galbraith is with "spiritual" enthusiasm. Stick to your newly found "spiritual" path. Pepe
He uses the word “TOKEN” in quotes and all capital letters to call attention to it. We know that the Hair and Blood, which was in Pepe’s possession at the time, was described by Shoghi Efendi to be a “token.” We also know that Dr. Jensen had been writing to Pepe explaining to him the importance of the Hair and Blood as a token of adoption. It’s not an accident that Pepe uses this word “TOKEN” with emphasis.
Brent was strongly being considered by Pepe as a person to inherit the Aghsan guardianship. In fact, at this point, Pepe was actively engaged in trying to convince Brent to accept an appointment to the Aghsan guardianship.
A month earlier, on August 4, 1990, Pepe had written to Brent:
If you still believe in Jensen and all he proposes after reading what I have offered you and if I should die on the plane going to or returning from the USA, you would all be in a serious plight. So......
As I consider you to be the ONLY one amongst those who have written to me recently regarding Jensen's proposals, worthy of being my spiritual "son" I would want you to use this statement to assert yourself as the successor to the Guardianship as an AGHSAN.
Now, mind you, I do not consider myself an AGHSAN, but if you all believe I am, I make this appointment based on your belief.
While Pepe had still not accepted at this point that he was an Aghsan, we know from later statements that he evolved from this position. It seems that the argument had to come from someone other than Dr. Jensen, specifically from Daniel Scherr. Be that as it may, it is obvious that in Pepe’s mind, a person had to first be “worthy” before he would actually adopt that person into the Aghsan line, even if he was merely involved in an effort to placate. The “TOKEN” sent to Brent – i.e. the letter from Mr. Galbraith to Mason – was explicitly described as a symbol of that worthiness.
The August 4th letter to Brent is a provisional appointment letter. First, it is set in the context of Pepe’s immediate travel plans. He is, in effect, covering his butt just in case he dies in a plane crash. Second, he makes it clear that the appointment is contingent on Brent’s belief that Pepe is an Aghsan when he says, “I do not consider myself an AGHSAN, but if you all believe I am, I make this appointment based on your belief.” We know that Brent ended up cutting these three paragraphs of the Aug. 4 letter and sending it back to Pepe, thus rejecting any notion of appointment and adoption. We also know that at this time, Brent was in the process of totally rejecting Dr. Jensen’s teaching that Pepe was an Aghsan. At that point, Brent no longer met the explicit condition set forth by Pepe – that the appointment was based on the belief that he was an Aghsan.
After having received the returned portion of his letter to Brent, Pepe wrote on Aug. 28:
When I wrote you suggesting you be adopted as successor to the Guardianship in the Aghsan lineage and considered you "worthy" of being my spiritual "son", it was not my intention to give you the impression that it was Joseph Pepe-Remey who considered you thus "worthy" but Joseph Pepe-Remey-AGHSAN in whom you all believe. I am returning that portion of my letter (which you returned to me) to allow you to reconsider the proposal wherein you will note that I stated: "As I consider you to be the ONLY one amongst those who have written to me recently regarding Jensen's proposals, worthy of being...etc" That is, the only one amongst those, etc.
Here, he makes it clear that this suggestion that Brent be adopted as successor was coming from “Joseph Pepe-Remey-AGHSAN in whom you all believe.” In effect, Pepe is saying that he’s playing along so that those who believe that he is Aghsan guardian will have a successor, even though Pepe himself did not accept that he was an Aghsan at that point. Brent stopped believing that Pepe was an Aghsan right around this time, and this was no doubt a motivating factor in Brent rejecting Pepe’s “proposal.”
Eventually, when Pepe was able to see for himself based on the work of Daniel Scherr that he (Pepe) was Mason’s Aghsan successor, he took action to ensure that he had a successor. He had not yet given up on Brent, however. He continued to appeal to him for several months to reconsider. Eventually, Brent fell out of favor with Pepe.
Returning to the idea of a “TOKEN” mentioned in his Sept. 10 letter to Brent, Pepe makes it clear that the third-party letter (from Mr. Galbraith) that had been sent to Mason was enclosed as a “TOKEN” that he considered Brent to be a spiritually worthy individual.
This idea of a person being spiritually worthy was evidently very important to Pepe. The Will and Testament itself lends validity to the idea that the guardian must be concerned with the “spiritual within” his appointed successor. It does not negate the fact that the succeeding guardian must be, according to Baha’i law, an appointed Aghsan, but clearly the W&T imposes on the guardian the requirement to discern spiritual qualities in his appointed son. Doc did not emphasize this requirement because while a believer can discern the facts of sonship and appointment, only the guardian is given the responsibility of discerning the spiritual worthiness of his successor. A believer must not reject a succeeding guardian because the believer judges the successor to be “unspiritual.” Yet in the process of determining Pepe’s successor, it does help those investigating the matter to know whom he himself considered to be spiritually worthy and whom he considered to be unworthy, as his assessments in this matter have a direct bearing on his choice.
At the end of my March 1992 visit to Pepe in Florence, he handed me three tokens: 1) an old letter from 1916 that had been written to Mason Remey by a humble blacksmith; 2) a small horseshoe charm that was made by the same blacksmith; 3) a photograph of Abdu’l-Baha that Pepe said belonged to Mason.
The first of these is so similar in nature to the “TOKEN” that he had sent to Brent, that we must consider it in this light. He left an explicit clue in his letter to Brent that a third-party letter written to Mason by a humble, spiritually inclined individual, is given as a “TOKEN” that he considers a person to be spiritually worthy. This sentiment that he considered me spiritually worthy was confirmed in numerous statements that he wrote to me.
The second item, the horseshoe charm, can be thought of literally as a token, fitting the following dictionary definition: keepsake, souvenir.
The third item, Mason’s photograph of Abdu’l-Baha, is most clearly an explicit token of adoption. It has all the symbolic value required of institutive evidence, in that it represents the Aghsan lineage back to Abdu’l-Baha. And having such symbolic value, it also fits another dictionary definition of “token”: symbol, emblem.
These tokens, paired with his several statements referring to me as one of his boys/sons constitutes Baha’i adoption, according to ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s precedent.
Appointment Controversy
Pepe’s listing of me as one of three “sub-guardian” candidates followed by the statement that I was the only one of the three still in communication constitutes an appointment, given the broader context of events.
It has been argued that this “sub-guardian” statement by Pepe is not explicit enough of an appointment. True, he does not come out and say that he is appointing me his successor, which is what many people seem to be looking for.
What cannot be argued with is the fact that Pepe clearly expressed having given serious consideration to appointing me a “sub-guardian,” followed by a statement that leaves the door open, so to speak. Given the fact that the institution of the guardianship has been tested to the “point of extinction” (Doc’s words), we need to consider the possibility that Pepe’s expressed intent counts for something. Remember, because Mason went on to appoint others subsequent to his appointment of Pepe, some have argued that Pepe’s appointment was not “current.” However, we accept that his appointment was valid because Pepe was the only Aghsan.
Further, millions of Baha’is rejected Mason Remey’s claim because they did not accept that he was a son or that he was appointed, thus buying into the Hands’ assertion that the guardianship came to an end. The adoption and appointment were apparently not explicit enough for them. In this regard, today’s deniers are dangerously close to joining the ranks of those they lambasted for years as Covenant breakers. These are the words of one of the sans-guardian scholars:
Abdu'l-Baha's design for the Guardianship had a built-in closure clause. Because each Guardian had to appoint his successor in his lifetime and get the choice approved by the 9 selected Hands of the Cause, who had the right to accept or reject his choice in a secret ballot, a Guardian could not appoint his successor in his Will. He had to do it in his lifetime, although it would be possible for the Guardian and the 9 Hands to keep the appointment secret. But a newly-appointed Guardian would not be likely to immediately appoint his successor. He would want to wait to see how his own children developed, perhaps to see how his grandchildren developed, and if that was disappointing, to look at the field of eligible male descendants of Baha'u'llah, and only make his choice and ask for the approval of the 9 Hands when he was quite sure about it. After all, there is no provision for a provisional appointment, or to revoke an appointment if the first choice proves unfortunate. In the meantime, if the Guardian dies unexpectedly -- the Guardianship ends.
Abdu'l-Baha would have been aware of this when he designed the appointment procedure, because a similar situation existed in Shiah Islam. The Imamate was not passed on automatically according to defined rules, as in the English monarchy; rather the Imam recognized his successor by explicit designation. The eleventh Imam did not do so, Hasan ibn Ali known as Imam al-Askari, was appointed Imam at the age of 22 and died at age 28. He had not designated a successor.
So Abdu'l-Baha designed the institution to be mortal. And Baha'u'llah had already designed the Universal House of Justice to operate without a Guardian or a Guardianship. Although we've lost a good deal, from the early termination of the institution, we are perfectly capable of carrying on with what we have.
(Sen McGlinn, http://bahaiforums.com/general-discussion/8586-guardianship-only-guardian.html)
The coup de grace is the statement that “Abdu'l-Baha designed the institution [of the guardianship] to be mortal.” This is a falsehood that betrays the author’s fundamental confusion. It serves as a warning of the consequence of being under a violation of the Covenant.
That said, there is some truth to the author’s words. The infallible Guardianship did come to an end with the passing of “the sacred and youthful branch,”5 as intended by ‘Adbu’l-Baha. However, the Aghsan guardianship continued. Further, Mr. McGlinn reasonably points out potential challenges that future generations may have to contend with regarding Aghsan succession (though he reaches an erroneous conclusion). There is no guarantee that the question of succession will always be a simple matter. Nevertheless, those loyal to Dr. Jensen will never accept that the Davidic guardianship has come to an end.
Pepe’s antagonism toward the High Priest left the guardianship hanging by a thread. Some of those rejecting my claim can point to no evidence of anyone else as a possible Aghsan successor. They seem to be expecting some kind of courtroom drama ending, in which some previously unknown heir steps forward waving official adoption and appointment papers in hand, signed, sealed and delivered by Pepe. They forget the history of tests that have weeded out the unfaithful from the ranks of the believers around this question of the Davidic guardianship.
After years and years of Dr. Jensen hammering the point that the Davidic guardianship will not end, the majority of his former disciples and apostles are dead to his words.
They test God, demanding He prove to them that He was faithful to His Covenant in the way that fulfills their imaginations and expectations. Until then, they are satisfied with their own complacency.
My claim is provisional. If someone were to step forward with heretofore hidden evidence of a claim stronger than mine, I will relinquish mine. If I am not the guardian, God will make this apparent in time. In the meantime, the Cause will continue to move forward with or without the deniers and fence sitters. By their fruits you will know them.
Baha’i Executor of Pepe’s Will
Finally, we come to the fact that Dr Jensen’s widow Wind, after having examined the evidence, has determined that I am the legitimate successor to Pepe as the Aghsan guardian according to Baha’i law, and has given me the Hair and the Blood. It is incumbent upon all Covenant Loyalists to meditate upon this matter with neither love nor hate in their hearts.
Anyone looking at the facts must marvel at the remarkable manner in which the Hair and Blood came into Dr. Jensen’s possession. It went from Pepe's apartment, to Dr. Jensen's courier (Jim Fluri), then to Dr. Jensen. Jim had visited Pepe a couple of years earlier at which time Pepe showed Jim where the Hair and the Blood were kept. So Jim was the only Baha’i, if not the only person in the world, who knew where to look for it.
It was no accident that this sacred token of the Hair and Blood was left out of the Baha'i material that went to Pepe’s sister and secular executor, Anna. It never passed through her hands. Instead, it passed directly to Dr. Jensen.
As High Priest, Doc tapped Wind with the responsibility to act as the executor of Pepe’s will vis-à-vis the Covenant. These are two of the functions of the executor of a will as listed in an online article, “What Does an Executor Do?” [http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-does-executor-do-30236.html]:
“Figure out who inherits property. If the deceased person left a will, the executor will read it to determine who gets what. If there's no will [and there was no will regarding the Hair and Blood], the person in charge . . . will have to look at state law [in this case, Baha'i law] . . . to find out who the deceased person's heirs are.”
“Supervise the distribution of the deceased person's property. The property will go to the people or organizations named in the will or those entitled to inherit under state [or in this case, Baha'i] law.”
Because Pepe did not actually name in any document an executor to specifically administer the Hair and the Blood, the “probate court” of the High Priest, the one whose mission it was with establish the Baha’i courts, appointed an executor. From article, “What if There is No Named Executor in a Will?” [http://info.legalzoom.com/there-named-executor-will-4029.html]:
“When no executor is named, the executor cannot be determined or the executor is unable or unwilling to serve, the probate court will appoint someone to be the executor. Usually, the court will allow any interested person to offer to serve as executor and will choose from those who volunteer.”
That executor appointed by the probate court of the High Priest was his widow, Wind, and she has carried out this appointed task when she handed the token to me, the “prodigal son,”6 as Doc once referred to me in a public forum.
Conclusion
In the beginning of this paper, I spoke of the UHJ as a token of God’s love, and the Hair and Blood as a token of that token. When one meditates upon its path, the work of Divine Providence is evident.
It served as the key piece of institutive evidence for the adoption of a gentile into the line of Davidic kings foretold in Genesis 49. It was left to Joseph Pepe, the only one among several claimants to be recognized by the Lamb as the true successor. It was retrieved from a secret hiding place by perhaps the only person who knew where it was hidden, and that person happened to be a student of Dr. Jensen. It was delivered into Dr. Jensen’s hands, bypassing completely the hands of another false claimant. It was left to Dr. Jensen’s loyal widow, the only sIBC member to remain faithful to the Covenant. Finally, the token of the Kingdom of the Father was delivered into the hands of the prodigal son.
The journey is not complete. Only when the sacred trust bestowed upon the first Aghsan guardian by Shoghi Effendi is fulfilled, will the token come to rest. When all rule, law and authority are placed under the feet of the Lamb, then will he hand earthly sovereignty over to the Kingdom of his Father, and the living guardian will place the Hair and Blood in the halls of the Universal House of Justice, where it will serve as a token of God’s grace and a confirmation of His Sovereign and Immutable Will.
Allah’u’Abha
1 “A head of state is the individual who serves as the chief public representative of a monarchy, federation, commonwealth, or other kind of state.” (Wikipedia). “The obligations of the Hands of the Cause of God [under the shadow and command of the Guardian] are to diffuse the Divine Fragrances . . .” (Will and Testament)
2 He returns under the Covenant of Baha’u’llah as the Lamb who appoints 12 apostles to the body, and after placing all rule, law and authority under his feet, places the rod of iron in the Universal House of Justice. The rod of iron is the authority to appoint (graft in) and remove (cut off) members.
3 It must be emphasized that the grafting-in principle for the Aghsan guardianship applies only to his own Aghsan line. He has no individual authority to graft in, or to remove, other members. Dr. Jensen explained that Mason did not have the authority to appoint his own IBC. That is the iron-rod authority, and it rests with the Lamb.
4 ‘Abdu’l-Baha, Will and Testament, p.15
5Shoghi Effendi
6 Luke 15:11-32.