June 2nd, 2002
Dear Neal,
I'm sending you this letter in the spirit of utmost love and kindness. My hope is that it will be read by you and you alone.
In the letter I received from you I was surprised to hear that people don't think you will be the one to spread the message of the Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Covenant. That is one thing I have no doubt in your accomplishing. After watching you all those Friday nights on MCAT and your close association with Doc in the promulgation of this message, who could question your role in broadcasting this to the world? I think I believe that even more today than I did a few years ago.
However, I have serious reservations about your corresponding claim to be the guardian. I think you have gotten the role of broadcaster so intertwined with the role of the guardian that you have confused and misinterpreted the evidence you put forth in your "ben Joseph Aghsan" letter to me as well as the three other e-mailed documents. I will address these problems shortly.
You wrote:
The Judgement day is when people seeing the facts judge themselves worthy or unworthy to accept the truth and enter the Kingdom of their own volition. When they judge themselves unworthy this is usually done by denying, attacking or denouncing the True One as false and then making up spiritual excuses (theologies) for why they are not firm in the Covenant. When people accept the truth, on the other hand, they are free from the prison of self, and see God with their own eyes, and win their stations in this world and the next through active service in this Cause.
[ben Joseph Aghsan letter, Neal Chase]
I wholeheartedly agree with this and, Neal, I hope that you, too, recognize the facts and the truth when presented and judge justly.
When examining information and making decisions, Dr. Jensen instructed the sIBC through the Liaison Officer that we make our judgments based on the facts and evidences before us:
We must go by the facts. We must still vote our own conscience. We must
1
get enough facts to be reasonably sure when we make a decision.
Each one needs to bring in writings and facts to back up their arguments or beliefs. This doesn't mean they should shut their ears to facts and writings brought in by other members. Just that each one has to contribute writings and/or facts to the general pool. Then it will be like a jigsaw puzzle where, when all the pieces are put together, its a beautiful mosaic.
In the Baha'i system it is assumed that the council members will be spiritual. Because they are spiritual people who seek after the truth no matter what, it is assumed that, despite having prior knowledge, they will still look at all the facts objectively, weighing everything with Justice.
This is the standard for determining the truth for the UHJ in any of its four stages of development. I'm going to ask you to use this same standard of going by the facts and evidences to judge the truth when examining what I have to say.
The first point I want to address is something you wrote regarding Mason Remey and the fact that he never provided proof or evidence that he was the son of 'Abdu'l-Baha:
For example on the cover Mason stated he was the "hereditary guardian," but he NEVER ONCE proved, showed, demonstrated or proclaimed how he was hereditary.
[ben Joseph Aghsan letter, Neal Chase]
Thus Mason detailed NOTHING in his so-called proclamation. He tells NOTHING of how he was adopted by 'Abdu'l-Baha, he says NOTHING about how he qualifies as Aghsan, he says NOTHING about the hair and the blood, he publishes NONE of the Aghsan Letters 'Abdu'l-Baha sent to him to ensure the line of David would last for ever.
[ben Joseph Aghsan letter, Neal Chase]
Mason's Concept of His Guardianship:
Neal, from what I recall you were the one who, in 1989, discovered the evidence that 'Abdu'l-Baha adopted Mason Remey according to the laws of the land of Palestine which date back to the Ottoman empire. It's too bad that Mason never discovered that evidence for himself. Because as I will show by the facts and evidence, Mason not only never proved he was a son of 'Abdu'l-Baha as you
2
stated, Mason also never realized that he was a son of 'Abdu'l-Baha. If we go by the facts, Mason thought he was the guardian based on appointment alone. Without this knowledge of being 'Abdu'l-Baha's son, Mason never fully recognized the importance of the two-part criteria outlined in the Will and Testament for appointing a successor.
To begin with, I'd like to offer evidence that Mason expected a descendent from Baha'u'llah's bloodline to come forward in the future to claim the guardianship. The following are a chronological series of quotes from Mason Remey taken from the late-1950's up to the mid-1960's that illustrate this point:
Later on after a generation or so some of the Agsan [sic] will we trust come back into the fold of the Faith and then the line of Guardianship will be arranged to be back again in the line of the direct descendants of Baha'u'llah as prescribed by Abdu'l Baha.
[Mason Remey in Daily Observations, Vol. I, p. 38]
This quote, circa 1958, tells us that Mason thought an Aghsan descendant as "prescribed" in the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha was going to return to the faith. He also indicates this descendant could only come from the direct line of father-to-son descendants from Baha'u'llah. Most importantly, this quote tells us that Mason did not consider himself to be an Aghsan descendant.
This fact is reaffirmed in the following excerpts from Daily Observations:
We are at an impasse in the History of the Baha'i Faith. The line of the succession by birth of the Guardianship is broken. Now the blank question before us is where and how shall we make the [next] step.
[Daily Observations, Vol. I, p. 63]
...This Shoghi Effendi had to do in order to save the cause from destruction, particularly so here in Haifa where things so got out of hand among the followers excluding even into his own family circle that in order to save the cause, The Beloved Guardian had to sever these branches to the right and to the left - thus the cause was saved but with none of his family remaining with no one at all to continue the hereditary line of Guardianship - so bad was this condition.
[Mason Remey in Daily Observations, Vol. I, p. 81,82]
Note the above reference to the "hereditary" line of Guardianship. Mason did consider himself the Guardian, but what is missing is the hereditary (Aghsan)
3
connection. Compare what Mason says about the hereditary line ending above with what he says below when he proclaimed himself in 1960:
I expect them to accept me without question as their Commander-in-Chief in all.
The line of the Guardianship of the Baha'i Faith is unbroken for I have been the Guardian of the Faith since the death of the Beloved Guardian Shoghi Effendi.
[Proclamation of Second Guardian, p. 6]
This is important. When referring to his guardianship, Mason does not use the term "line of direct descendants," "line of succession by birth" or "hereditary line." When talking about those terms he used the word "broken" due to the lack of an apparent Aghsan descendant. Mason's new term--"line of Guardianship"--is not a father-to-son lineage. Instead this line passes from one "guardian" to the next via appointment only (as I will show in a moment). This proves an important point: Mason considered himself to be the guardian, but non-Aghsan. Mason could not see how he was Aghsan despite having the hair and blood token and despite having those "Dear Aghsan" letters from 'Abdu'l-Baha. Obviously this will be a significant point when it comes time for Mason to choose his successor.
If there are those who believe Mason knew he was an Aghsan guardian and he was just testing the people, please take note of Mason's "Statement on Succession" that appeared in the August 1964 issue of the Glad Tidings:
In the case of the 2nd Guardian of the Faith, things so worked-out that this line of descent of the Guardians has been--for the present--broken.
I, Mason Remey, feel that this can be remedied and that the descent of the Guardianship can be brought back again into the line of descent from Baha'u'llah. This can be accomplished as soon as there may arise amongst those of this chosen descent one who will qualify. All this can be attained in conformity with the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha. Mason Remey
[Glad Tidings, Vol. V, No. 4 August, 1964-Kamal, 121 B.E., p. 2]
By reasserting that the line of direct descendants had been broken and that this lineage would be reestablished when a qualified descendant steps forward sometime in the future, Mason reconfirms what he had said prior to 1960 about the Aghsan lineage ending.
Based on the above we can draw the following conclusions:
4
Mason thought that
1) in order to be a legitimate Aghsan guardian, the individual must be a male, bloodline descendent from Baha'u'llah,
and
2) Mason saw this Aghsan lineage as being "broken" as late as 1964.
Therefore,
3) based on the evidence Mason did not consider himself grafted into the line of descent from Baha'u'llah via adoption by 'Abdu'l-Baha.
Mason saying he was hoping for a legitimate Aghsan descendent to come in the future indicates he didn't consider himself to be that Aghsan descendent and therefore did not understand the need to appoint a qualified son to be his successor. If Mason did not consider himself to be an Aghsan, what would lead us to believe that Mason appointed a son according to the provisions of the Will and Testament? This ignorance on Mason's part led to his violation of the Covenant and the resulting need for the Establisher.
...the light of the Covenant becomes known through the contrasting shadows of darkness - disobedience and opposition to the Covenant. Disobedience and opposition to the Covenant - the violation of it - exposes the people's [and Mason's] lack of knowledge. This is the ignorance which made them susceptible to falling prey to that violation.
[Revelation Explained, p. 243]
Once you accept God's Covenant, obeying its provisions is voluntary, not mandatory--whether you're a believer, a Hand or the Guardian. If Mason was ignorant of how he fulfilled the provisions of the W&T yet still believed he was the guardian, what possibility is there that he followed those provisions and appointed a legitimate successor correctly?
Mason Remey's Appointment to the Guardianship:
Neal, as far as Mason's appointment is concerned, you indicated the following:
He says NOWHERE how it was that 'Abdu'l-Baha appointed him in his life-time to the throne of David, and how it WAS NOT Shoghi Effendi, and how Shoghi Effendi had NO CHOICE in the matter but only welcomed him, as he, Mason, was the only living son of 'Abdu'l-Baha, that 'Abdu'l-Baha appointed in his lifetime to succeed him to the throne.
[ben Joseph Aghsan letter, Neal Chase]
5
In your letter you state: "Mason Remey published his proclamation detailing why he believed himself to be the guardian." If this were true, Dave, then Mason Remey's proclamation would have included the DETAILS that he was the adopted son of 'Abdu'l-Baha, as he had received Aghsan Letters from 'Abdu'l-Baha, and that he was APPOINTED by 'Abdu'l-Baha in His lifetime in the prescribed manner through the receipt of the token of the hair and the blood, to be the next son, Aghsan, of the male-line to be seated on the throne of David. Mason would have detailed that the hair represented the appointment to the headship of the IBC/UHJ, and that the blood represented the bloodline of King David, that the Master 'Abdu'l-Baha was continuing through him. These are things which Mason would HAVE DETAILED, for these are his proofs and these are the facts and reasons why he KNEW he was the guardian. However, Mason never did this. He wrote and said none of these things. But to Pepe he explained this all.
[ben Joseph Aghsan letter, Neal Chase]
We base our opinions and decisions on the facts and evidences. If, as you say, Mason gave no details, evidence or proof of his appointment by 'Abdu'l-Baha but knew it anyway and taught it to Pepe, then we are not going by the evidence. When we examine his writings, from his Proclamation in 1960 until his death in 1974, all the facts indicate that Mason claimed his guardianship was based on Shoghi Effendi's appointing him President of the first International Baha'i Council. And if we examine what Dr. Jensen taught, all the available evidence (with one exception) points to the same conclusion--that Mason's appointment to the guardianship was based on Shoghi Effendi's appointing him President of the first IBC. This is if we go by the available facts and evidences before us.
In addition, by going by those same facts and evidences we must come to the conclusion that Mason considered himself to be the guardian based solely upon his appointment by Shoghi Effendi. As already proven, Mason did not understand that he was Aghsan by adoption. But Mason did see that he was appointed by Shoghi Effendi and came to the conclusion that he was the guardian due to this appointment alone. This resulted in a line of appointed-only "guardians" stemming from Mason's ignorance and misunderstanding. First the evidence for Mason's appointment and then the hair and blood token will be addressed.
When he made his proclamation in 1960, Mason made it clear that he was the guardian based on his appointment to the first IBC. Here is Mason's first-ever recorded claim to the guardianship:
The Baha'i people the world around know that The Beloved Guardian
6
singled me, Mason Remey, out from amongst all of the Believers upon earth to occupy the position of President of the Baha'i International Council. This is the only position suggestive of authority that Shoghi Effendi ever bestowed upon anyone, the only special and specific appointment of authority to any man ever made by him.
[Proclamation of Second Guardian, p. 1]
Mason repeated the same thing in his subsequent appeals and letters to the Baha'is:
In my Proclamation to the Baha'i World - Ridvan 117 of this Baha'i Era - I announced to the Baha'i world that the Beloved Guardian of the Faith, Shoghi Effendi, had in his own life time appointed me to follow him in the Guardianship of the Faith as the Second Guardian of the Baha'i Cause, and that I have been the Guardian of the Faith (and had stood alone guarding the Faith) since the death of the First Guardian of the Faith.
...I would remind such questioners that the Infallible First Guardian of the Faith [Shoghi Effendi] appointed me to my present office in the Faith -- appointed me during his life time as Guardian of the Faith. No believer should question this infallible appointment!
...for inasmuch as my appointment was during the life time of Shoghi Effendi, automatically at his death I was the Second Guardian of the Faith!
Therefore, in view of these facts there should be no question as to the legitimacy of my Guardianship since the Beloved Guardian Shoghi Effendi accomplished this appointment all in accordance with the Will and Testament of the Master 'Abdu'l-Baha.
[I Encyclical Letter, p. 1]
Mason thought that the appointment by Shoghi Effendi during Shoghi's lifetime was all that was needed to be "in accordance with the Will and Testament." Mason makes no mention of the need to be a son.
After receiving and reading my Proclamation to the Baha'i world, announcing my appointment as The Second Guardian of the Baha'i Faith as made by The Beloved First Guardian of the Baha'i Faith during his lifetime, almost the entire Baha'i world, it would seem, endorsed the violation of the Hands of the Faith in their repudiation of the most important act of The Beloved Guardian, Shoghi Effendi, in thus fulfilling that which he was commanded to do in the Will and Testament of the Blessed Master 'Abdu'l-Baha: namely, during his lifetime as First Guardian of the Faith, to appoint his successor,
7
the Second Guardian of the Faith. This he accomplished, as directed in the Will and Testament, when he appointed me, Mason Remey, as his successor in command of the Baha'i Faith.
Although my appointment was veiled at the time, when as his first step he appointed me President of the Baha'i International Council, later on The Beloved Guardian very explicitly explained (still veiled, but clearly explained when all of his statements were taken together with the instructions in the Master's Will and Testament) his appointment of me as his successor. It is very clear and concise and not to be misunderstood.
[II Encyclical Letter, p. 1]
And again in a 1961 Glad Tidings insert, Mason is quoted in "Letters from the Guardian":
WILL OF GUARDIAN October 22, 1961
Shoghi Effendi had no personal estate of his own to will to anybody.
He was what is known in THE LAW as a "Corporate Soul". He owned everything in the Cause as the Guardian of the Faith and by appointing the second Guardian he automatically transferred everything that went with the Guardianship to his successor.
[Glad Tidings, Glad Tidings Insert, October 22, 1961 p. 5]
Mason was claiming the guardianship based solely on his appointment by Shoghi Effendi, not understanding how he was a son of 'Abdu'l-Baha.
The sans-Guardians contend that Shoghi Effendi ended the Guardianship because there was no one for him to appoint!
"In the 'Administrative Order' by Shoghi Effendi, he dwells upon the necessity of the Guardianship. Nowhere in any of his writings did he ever suggest that the Guardianship would ever be changed from 'by inheritance by appointment' to that of an elective system that the believers could institute and carry on with prospect of attaining any Divine Confirmation comparable with that of the Divine Order established in the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha.
"The Baha'is know these things but in times such as we are in these days, they have to be told again and again lest they forget."
[Glad Tidings, Vol. V, No. 8 February, 1965-Mulk, 121 B.E., p. 2]
Mason's statement "inheritance by appointment" is very significant and gives insight into Mason's intentions. He is combining the "appointment" criteria from the W&T with his concept of the "inheritance" of the guardianship that is passed
8
from one appointee to the next. When Dr. Jensen and the BUPC talk about "inheritance" it refers to Baha'u'llah's line of descent, specifically the hair and the blood "inheritance" which indicated Mason's adoption into the Aghsan lineage (see next section)--one of the two necessary criteria to be guardian. When we talk about the "appointment" it's always something that comes sometime after the inheritance--"first a son, then appointed." But here Mason makes the inherited line of descent and the appointment one and the same--the line of descent now representing a series of "appointed-only" guardians. No mention of the guardian's need to be a son can be found anywhere in Mason's writings due to the fact that Mason didn't realize he was a son of 'Abdu'l-Baha.
The available evidence indicates that Mason saw himself as being something different from an Aghsan guardian--that of an "appointed-only" guardian in the "line of guardianship" from Shoghi Effendi. We knew Mason thought he was infallible like Shoghi Effendi, but we did not know that Mason thought he was a lineal descendant of Shoghi Effendi via appointment only. We use the term "lineal" as meaning "in a straight line." Mason used it in that way as well, except his line was not based on the Aghsan lineage but on appointment alone.
Hair and Blood token not Mason's appointment:
Neal, in the quote cited earlier, you mentioned Mason was appointed via the hair and blood token by 'Abdu'l-Baha:
Mason Remey's proclamation would have included the DETAILS...that he was APPOINTED by 'Abdu'l-Baha in His lifetime in the prescribed manner through the receipt of the token of the hair and the blood, to be the next son, Aghsan, of the male-line to be seated on the throne of David.
[ben Joseph Aghsan, Neal Chase]
I will show from Doc's authoritative explanations that this token signified Mason's adoption and inheritance and never represented 'Abdu'l-Baha's appointment of Mason Remey.
According to Doc the hair and the blood represented the "bloodline," "lineage" and "inheritance" from Baha'u'llah through 'Abdu'l-Baha to Mason. This is the last thing Doc said on the matter:
In this case Mason Remey had inherited the bloodline of King David from his father, 'Abdu'l-Baha. 'Abdu'l-Baha adopted Mason Remey and gave him a token of this adoption as an inheritance. Shoghi Effendi, as the executor of 'Abdu'l-Baha's estate, delivered to Mason
9
Remey an envelope containing a small packet with blood and hair from Baha'u'llah. A note was written on the outside envelope in Shoghi Effendi's handwriting:
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 of God, Mr. Remey (Shoghi, March 1922).
Another note was hand-written on the packet itself:
Coagulated drops of Baha'u'llah's All-Sacred Blood and Ringlets of His Most Blessed Locks presented as my most precious possession to 'Abdu'l-Baha's 'dear son' Mr. Charles Mason Remey as a token of my Baha'i affection and brotherly love. Shoghi
Thus 'Abdu'l-Baha, who was a descendant of King David, adopted Mason Remey, making Mason Remey a descendant of King David. This lineage is to last forever. When Shoghi Effendi placed Mason Remey at the head of the embryonic Universal House of Justice, he was continuing this lineage of David, with Mason Remey and his descendants to be the presidents of the Universal House of Justice.
Then there's the following from another of the last documents from Doc, The Seventh Angel Sounded:
Shoghi Effendi recognized 'Abdu'l-Baha's adoption of Mason as true and legal. Immediately after the death of 'Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi sent Mason Remey a "package of 'Abdu'l-Baha's most sacred possession," which was left to Shoghi to give to Mason Remey as his inheritance: "locks of Baha'u'llah's hair" (which represents the headship of the IBC/UHJ) and "drops of his coagulated blood" (which represents the bloodline of David and Baha'u'llah). On the outside of the package Shoghi Effendi addressed it to 'Abdu'l-Baha's "dear son" whom he later appointed to the headship of the IBC/UHJ. The hair and blood are the tokens of inheritance. "'Abdu'l-Baha's most prized possession" shows the evidence of the "legal adoption passed on from father to son"-'Abdu'l-Baha to Mason.
[The Seventh Angel Sounded circa 1994, p. 5]
And another instance of Doc referring to the hair and blood token:
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
10
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.
In the above quotes Doc emphasizes the fact that Mason inherited the Aghsan lineage via that token of the hair and blood of Baha'u'llah. This token represented Mason Remey's adoption into Baha'u'llah's lineage. This was Mason's inheritance. An appointment to the guardianship is not inherited. Doc says the hair "represents" the presidency of the IBC, but that is not the same as an appointment by the previous guardian.
Shoghi gave Mason the hair and blood inheritance and thirty years later appointed Mason President of the IBC. It's a two-part criteria--first a son and then appointed. The inheritance represented by the hair and blood was not the appointment, but the lineage. Also even though Mason received this Aghsan lineage via this token in 1922, he didn't understand how that made him a son of 'Abdu'l-Baha by the time he made his proclamation in 1960 (as already explained). Therefore Mason didn't know how he fulfilled the first criteria--the need to be a son.
This [adoption] was usually confirmed by some token such as a stick or a stone, or something, to make it definite that it was meant that it was a legal adoption. This is called institutive evidence.
Institutive evidence is that which is created or adopted as a memorial of a fact and for the purpose of being evidence of the fact. The stone set up for a boundary; the giving and receiving of a clod of earth or a twig in livery of seizing as evidence or the transfer of the title [etc]....
The master gave Mr. Remey what no one else ever received--relics of the Blood and Hair of Baha'u'llah; in the East this act symbolizes Mr. Remey's adoption as a Son by 'Abdu'l-Baha and his becoming a member of the Holy Family.
Shoghi Effendi recognized 'Abdu'l-Baha's adoption of Mason as true and legal. Immediately after the death of 'Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi sent Mason Remey a "package of 'Abdu'l-Baha's most sacred possession," which was left to Shoghi to give to Mason Remey as his inheritance: "locks of Baha'u'llah's hair" (which represents the headship of the IBC/UHJ) and "drops of his coagulated blood" (which represents the bloodline of David and Baha'u'llah). On the outside of the package Shoghi Effendi addressed it to 'Abdu'l-Baha's "dear son" whom he [Shoghi Effendi] later appointed to the headship of the IBC/UHJ. The hair and blood are
11
the tokens of inheritance. 'Abdu'l-Baha's most prized possession shows the evidence of the "legal adoption passed on from father to son"-- 'Abdu'l-Baha to Mason. This type of direct evidence of a token is called "institutive evidence".
[Doc to Marangella 1/12/94, p. 3--Endnote section entitled "Adoption"]
To summarize, the envelope containing the hair and blood of Baha'u'llah falls under the category of a token symbolizing Baha'u'llah's lineage. With Mason Remey it was used as a symbol for his adoption and inheriting the Aghsan lineage.
In your letter to me, you referenced Doc's last letter to Pepe in which Doc said that 'Abdu'l-Baha appointed Mason Remey:
There is one thing however that I must clear up is that I did not in anyway appoint you to be the guardian of the second International Baha'i Council. I don't know how you happened to come up with that myth. When Shoghi Effendi set-up the first International Baha'i Council he appointed all the members and then he said that he WELCOMED Mason Remey as the president of that Council. That is, Mason Remey was the only living son of 'Abdu'l-Baha. Therefore he was the only one that could possibly fulfill that position. It was not the choice of Shoghi Effendi. It was ordained by God. Mason Remey said that he or one of his successors would sit as president of the Universal House of Justice. Consequently like 'Abdu'l-Baha before he adopted a son and appointed him to be his successor in the guardianship. I had absolutely nothing at all to do about it.
[Doc's Final Epistle to Pepe 4/12/94, p. 2]
In every other letter where Doc mentioned Mason Remey's appointment, Doc wrote that Shoghi Effendi appointed Mason Remey. Why he said the opposite in this letter might be gleaned from the letter from Pepe that Doc was replying to which I don't have. But pointing at the Last Letter to Pepe to prove your point is like pointing at the one soldier marching out of step from the others and saying that he's the only one in step. I know we use that example for the explanation of 666. But if we are to go by the last instructions first, then why did Doc, over and over in Over the Wall, say that Mason Remey was appointed to his position by Shoghi Effendi? In Doc's last, greatest work, he never once said that 'Abdu'l-Baha appointed Mason Remey as the guardian--but that Shoghi Effendi did. You wrote to me that Doc said in Over the Wall as well as other places that 'Abdu'l-Baha appointed Mason Remey:
As a will is made in the lifetime of the one that makes it, verbal or
12
otherwise, this qualifies as Mason being appointed by 'Abdu'l-Baha within the lifetime of 'Abdu'l-Baha.
Now this is not my concept, and does not come from me, but is the explanation of Dr. Jensen, which he wrote in several Epistles and books, such as Over the Wall, Revelation Explained and The Most Mighty Document, etc....
I asked you for proof of that and you never wrote back. Again I ask you for proof of 'Abdu'l-Baha's appointment of Mason Remey other than Doc's Last Letter to Pepe.
One other point related to this is your belief that Mason inherited the throne of David from 'Abdu'l-Baha:
...All that was left to happen according to the Will of the Master, was that upon his passing, Mason Remey was to inherit the throne of David, which the Master gave to Mason in the form of the token of the hair and the blood...
[ben Joseph Aghsan letter, Neal Chase]
I have never seen this explanation from an authoritative individual that Mason inherited the throne of David. As referenced above from Dr. Jensen, what was inherited was the bloodline:
In this case Mason Remey had inherited the bloodline of King David from his father, 'Abdu'l-Baha. 'Abdu'l-Baha adopted Mason Remey and gave him a token of this adoption as an inheritance.
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.
It's a jump to say this bloodline is equivalent to the throne of David. What about Muhammad Ali who had that bloodline but clearly was not seated on the throne of David? Bloodline does not equate to an appointment or being seated on the throne of David. According to the W&T, it's based on being a son and appointed by the previous guardian. Period.
13
Can appoint a successor in a will:
The next issue to address has to do with your assertion that a succeeding guardian can be appointed in a will:
It was Baha'u'llah who proclaimed 'Abdu'l-Baha within His lifetime when He appointed him in his lifetime in his written Will -- penned, appointed and proclaimed in the Kitab-i-Ahd, while He was alive in this world ! It was 'Abdu'l-Baha who proclaimed Shoghi Effendi within His lifetime when He appointed him in his lifetime in his written Will -- penned, appointed and proclaimed in the sacred Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha, while He was alive in this world !
[ben Joseph Aghsan letter, Neal Chase]
For example 'Abdu'l-Baha appointed Mason Remey through the peculiar manner of passing on to him the token of the hair and the blood. Thus in 'Abdu'l-Baha's lifetime he appointed Mason Remey in his Will by instructing Shoghi Effendi, the executor of his estate, to deliver the token of appointment to Mason after he passed on. As a will is made in the lifetime of the one that makes it, verbal or otherwise, this qualifies as Mason being appointed by 'Abdu'l-Baha within the lifetime of 'Abdu'l-Baha.
[ben Joseph Aghsan letter, Neal Chase]
You are suggesting that due to the fact Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha appointed Their successors in Their Wills, subsequent guardians can be appointed in a will also. These Wills of Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha weren't just ordinary wills--they were God's Covenants--the standards to go by. Both Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha did appoint Their successors in Their Wills. However in 'Abdu'l-Baha's Will He sets the new standard for recognizing guardians after Shoghi Effendi: the guardian must be a son and must be appointed during the lifetime of the previous guardian:
It is incumbent upon the Guardian of the Cause of God to appoint in his own life-time him that shall become his successor, that differences may not arise after his passing.
[Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha, p. 12]
With Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha the standard for recognizing Their Successors was by appointment in Their Wills. With the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha the standard changed to the succeeding guardian being appointed
14
within the lifetime of the previous one.
Appointing a succeeding guardian in a will does not constitute "during his lifetime" as explained by Dr. Jensen. The following quotes were taken from the document "The Seventh Angel Sounded" which was written to the mainstream Covenant-breakers regarding their ignorance about this particular issue:
After the prayers were read one of the Persian "Hands" sprung to his feet saying "Bada"--that God had broken His Covenant, He didn't give Shoghi a son and Shoghi left no will[5] therefore the guardianship had come to an end.
footnote #5: No place does it say in any of the writings that the guardian should appoint his successor in a will. On the contrary the W&T states that he must appoint his successor during his lifetime--not in a will--what Shoghi Effendi did when he set up the first IBC. Also if he didn't have a son he must choose another Branch, an Aghsan.
[The Seventh Angel Sounded circa 1994, p. 2]
The next in line was Ruhiyyih Khanum who assured them that Shoghi had no son and that he left no will therefore the guardianship had come to an end.[6]
footnote #6: Neither of these were the criteria laid down in the W&T. If he didn't have a son then he must choose another branch (from another tree) to succeed him--which Shoghi did--and he was not to appoint his successor in a will but during his lifetime--which Shoghi did when he set up the first IBC in 1951.
[The Seventh Angel Sounded circa 1994, p. 2]
There she had the "Hands" make a thorough search of Shoghi's things to see if he had left a "Will". This was to have the "Hands" and all Baha'is to believe that this was the method in which a guardian was supposed to appoint his successor, although the W&T states that the guardian must appoint his successor during his lifetime--not in a Will--as this is only read after his passing. This was to derail them from looking for someone that Shoghi had already appointed and published, which he did when he appointed Mason to be the president or guardian, of the IBC/UHJ.
[The Seventh Angel Sounded circa 1994, p. 7]
A will does not become effective until after the will-maker's death. Therefore an appointment in a will is not made during the lifetime of the previous guardian and goes against the W&T. Guardians from Mason Remey on are supposed to be obedient to the Covenant, not go off and "do their own thing" free of the
15
constraints of the Covenant as you are suggesting.
FACT: Pepe was appointed by Mason in Mason's Will. A Will is made IN the lifetime, verbal or otherwise, but IS put into effect after the lifetime.
[Dear Friend letter]
No it's not according Dr. Jensen's authoritative explanation of the Covenant of God, the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha. I thought every BUPC knew that a guardian CANNOT be appointed in a will because it doesn't take effect until AFTER the guardian's death. Therefore an appointment in a will IS NOT in accordance with the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha.
To summarize this section on Mason Remey: Mason did not understand how he was 'Abdu'l-Baha's son (Aghsan). The proofs for Mason's adoption were the Dear Aghsan letters and the token of the Hair and the Blood of Baha'u'llah. The Hair and Blood further symbolized Mason's inheritance of the Aghsan lineage, but did not represent Mason's appointment to the throne of David nor the guardianship. Mason's claim for being the guardian was based solely on his appointment by Shoghi Effendi. As we'll see in the next section, Mason's ignorance--of being a son of of 'Abdu'l-Baha--lead to problems when it came time to choose his successor.
Evidence against Pepe being Mason's successor:
I had written to you asking what you believed to be the evidence for Pepe's appointment, mostly to make sure we were on the same page and in agreement. You did not respond to my inquiry. I'm not sure if this was a "test" on your part or you weren't able to reply.
I will examine two possibilities for what might be considered Mason's method of appointing Pepe: the nine-sided medallion and Mason Remey's last will and testament. As I will show, neither of these methods could be considered valid appointments by Mason Remey, and therefore Joseph Pepe Remey is disqualified as the succeeding guardian to Mason Remey.
The Medallion
It's not like Mason or Pepe went campaigning that they were the one. Doc had to force Pepe to tell him that he had the medallion.
[The Promise, Nefratiri Weeks]
16
Who cares what you or anyone else for that matter thinks of this. GOD accepts this as the token of appointment.
From Abdul-Baha there was given the hair and blood. From Mason there was given the Medallion.
[Dear Friend letter]
We all assumed the medallion represented Mason's way of appointing Pepe, including Doc. Here is Doc's account of what Mason said about the medallion in 1961:
When I was with Mason in Washington, in the spring of 1961, he told me that he had made a gold medallion overlaid with a relief of a nine-pointed star, and set with nine diamonds, which he attached to a gold chain. He said that he had made it for the first Guardian, for he thought that the guardian needed to have something to wear around his neck on special occasions and at affairs of state to distinguish him from other people. But that he had never found any occasion to give it to Shoghi Effendi, and that he still had it in his possession. He said that he didn't think that he would wear it at special occasions, but that he was going to give it to him who is to be the third Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, and in that way I was to know the third Guardian. He said that he would wear it at special functions and then everyone would know the third Guardian, or words to that affect. I took it at that time for him to mean that he was going to use this method to appoint his successor in Guardianship.
[Doc to Joseph Pepe Remey 7/19/75, p. 1]
The second Guardian told me in 1961 that the Baha'is would not be put through that same test again. The next time, he said, they would know that their is a guardian, but they would be confused for a while as to whom he had appointed. He told me that he had made a medallion and had overlayed it with a relief of a nine-pointed star and had attached it to a golden chain. He said that he had made it for the first guardian, for him to wear at special occassions and functions, so that the Guardian could be distinguished from other officials; but that he had never found the proper occassion to give this to him. He said that he would give it to him who is to be the third guardian, and that the one that he gives this to would thus be the next guardian. In 1962 I received a statement from Dr. Marie Frain M.D. and signed by her that stated about the same thing.
[Doc's Outline of Medallion circa 6/75, p. 1]
Dr. Marie Frain's account of what Mason said about the medallion:
17
MEETING WITH MASON REMEY THE SECOND GUARDIAN 8/4 AND 5-19-62
At the home of Edith Birchard and Ethel Kelly, Cambridge Spring Pa. Present: Della Emary, Martha Kelly, Edith Birchard, Ethel Kelly, Marie, Diane, and Frances Frain; Joseph Pepe, and Charles Mason Remey.
Mr. Remey was accompanied by a sincere soul, a recently made Baha'i, who is devoted to Mr. Remey and will act as his secretary, one Joseph Pepe....
A truly significant statement was made by Mr. Remey at supper Aug. 4, 1962, when he showed us a gold chain with a gold disc attached engraved with a 9 pointed star. He informed us that this insignia was made up in a wonderful necklace consisting of 18 links with a 9 pointed star attached. It was set with 9 diamonds. This, he said was to be worn by the next Guardian and would be left to the next Guardian that succeeded him. This was tantamount to saying that this would be the means by which the Believers could tell who the third Guardian was to be. He also said that, he had designed 2 or 3 other chains but not with diamonds which would also be left to the next Guardian. These are presently in a safety deposit box. We were very bright eyed. [Marie M. Frain M.D.]
[text of letter taken from Doc to Joseph Pepe Remey 7/19/75, pp. 1,2]
We all understood and taught that Mason appointed Pepe by giving him the nine-pointed medallion. But based on new facts and information, that old way of thinking no longer applies. Mason Remey, based on an authentic source, authoritatively did away with the medallion as the indicator for who his successor would be. The following is a letter from Mason Remey that appeared on page 3 of the November 1965 edition of "The Glad Tidings":
Guardian Clarifies Troublesome Questions
In a letter written to Dr. Marie Frain, National Spiritual Assembly member, the Guardian writes concerning three medallions and their significance. "The nine-sided or pointed decoration that I have, that your daughter inquired about is something which has nothing to do with the Faith nor with the continuation of the Guardianship. For me to make any statement on that would create a future problem, for, if such a decoration were reproduced or stolen, then he who presents it would be in a position to claim the hereditary rights to the Guardianship. When that particular medallion was designed by me, I carried it to all the conclaves with the Custodian Hands, so that I might have some symbol to show that I was prepared for the recognition
18
which I had hoped would be eventually demonstrated. I personally like insignia and symbols. A future Guardian may not feel as I do about such things."
The medallions were originally mentioned by the Guardian in Cambridge Springs, Pennsylvania, at Birchhaven, 1962. The Guardian mentioned that a medallion with a large diamond and two smaller ones of the same design would be given to the next Guardian. This prompted the question from Dian Frain, daughter of Dr. Frain, as to whether or not this would be the sole means of identifying the next Guardian.
[The Glad Tidings, Vol. VI, No. 3; November, 1965; Quddrat, 122 B.E.; p. 2]
Mason points out that using the nine-sided medallion or any physical item as a way to appoint a successor makes it susceptible to theft or reproduction by an illegitimate claimant. According to Mason we aren't supposed to look for a physical item or a trinket to distinguish his successor and that this method would lead to future problems. Even though many believed Pepe was the guardian because he had the medallion after Mason's death, it has now been shown that Mason canceled this method for appointing his successor. Whatever he said in 1961 and 1962 regarding it being an indicator for his successor, Mason did away with that method of appointment by 1965.
In addition, Mason made it clear that the Baha'is were to obey his last commands and appointments that contradicted with earlier ones [see Appendix A]. Today this leaves no doubt about ignoring the medallion as the indicator for Mason's successor. Even though many believed Pepe was the guardian because he had the medallion after Mason's death (despite no one ever seeing it in Pepe's possession), it has now been shown that Mason canceled this method for appointing his successor.
Would Dr. Jensen have accepted this new information about the medallion? To answer this question please consider the following quote. It had to do with the question of whether or not women would be on the UHJ:
Unless I and the second International Baha'i Council can be shone otherwise you can rest assured that both men and women will be on the Universal House of Justice (UHJ).
[Doc to Diana 3/15/94, p. 1]
Dr. Jensen said that his explanation stood--unless he was provided with new facts or information that proved otherwise. Also, it was not unprecedented nor unusual for Dr. Jensen to teach one thing and then later change his mind based on
19
new evidence when it came to light. The same holds true for sIBC decisions--if new facts are discovered, it is to reconsider the case and the evidence and change its decision accordingly.
What Mason said on page 2 of the November 1965 Glad Tidings sheds new light on the insignificance of the nine-pointed medallion as an indicator for Mason's successor. The medallion was thought to be Mason's way of appointing his only son, Pepe. But now there is no tangible evidence that Pepe was ever appointed by Mason. This new fact, therefore, disqualifies Joseph Pepe Remey as the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith. It also disqualifies any supposed successor to Joseph Pepe Remey laying claim to the guardianship.
Will issue:
Again, as you did not reply to my question regarding the evidence for Pepe's appointment of Mason Remey, I can only assume that you believe that Pepe was appointed in Mason Remey's will. This assumption is based on the following, cited earlier:
For example 'Abdu'l-Baha appointed Mason Remey through the peculiar manner of passing on to him the token of the hair and the blood. Thus in 'Abdu'l-Baha's lifetime he appointed Mason Remey in his Will by instructing Shoghi Effendi, the executor of his estate, to deliver the token of appointment to Mason after he passed on. As a will is made in the lifetime of the one that makes it, verbal or otherwise, this qualifies as Mason being appointed by 'Abdu'l-Baha within the lifetime of 'Abdu'l-Baha.
[ben Joseph Aghsan letter, Neal Chase]
As the Master, made his Will in his lifetime, thus Mason Remey was appointed by 'Abdu'l-Baha with this token from 'Abdu'l-Baha within his lifetime.
[ben Joseph Aghsan letter, Neal Chase]
I have already disproved the idea that a successor can be appointed in a will per Dr. Jensen's authoritative and binding explanations. Therefore whatever Mason said in his will does not constitute Pepe's appointment as it only became effective after Mason Remey's death and therefore does not qualify as an appointment made during the lifetime of the guardian as per the instructions of the W&T.
20
However, I do want to make some points about Mason's last will and testament.
Mason's Last Will and Testament:
When Mason's will and testament was first discovered and discussed in forum in 1994, Mason wrote that Pepe would inherit all things "tangible and intangible":
III- I bequeath to Joseph (Giuseppe) Pepe, Jr. everything tangible and intangible that I possess and may be entitled to.
[Charles Mason Remey's Last Will and Testament, 8/29/63, p. 1]
It was implied at that time that Pepe inheriting "everything tangible and intangible" supported the idea that Mason had appointed Pepe.
The concept of inheriting "everything tangible and intangible" was not something unique to Mason Remey's will. This is a standard that is used in most will and testaments written today. The proof of this can be found by going on the Internet and searching for these terms. You will find numerous wills of individuals using this same basic phrase. Therefore we can't simply assume that Mason's guardianship was the unique "intangible" item referred to in his will that Pepe inherited from him.
Another basic problem with Mason's will and testament representing Pepe's appointment is it has some reasoning problems. The argument goes like this:
1. According to Mason's last will and testament Pepe inherited all things tangible and intangible;
2. The guardianship that was Mason's is an intangible thing;
3. Therefore Pepe inherited the guardianship.
When we break it down this way it's easy to see the main problem with this logic: The guardianship is not something that is passed on through inheritance, but by appointment. Otherwise there would have been a statement in the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha indicating it could be passed on through inheritance--AFTER the guardian's lifetime--but it doesn't say that.
So Pepe inherited everything tangible and intangible at the time of Mason's death, excluding the guardianship which must be passed on by appointment during the guardian's lifetime. Therefore despite what Mason's will said, it in itself does not constitute, nor is evidence of, Mason's appointment of Pepe.
21
Why Mason adopted Pepe:
Why did Mason Remey adopt Joseph Pepe? We already know that Mason didn't do this to graft Pepe into the Aghsan lineage because Mason didn't understand how he, himself, was Aghsan. So, again, why then did Mason adopt Pepe? To answer this question, I would first like to present all of the known evidence that addresses this issue and then I will present my conclusion based on that evidence.
Mason was approximately 85 years old when he wrote the following:
But in addition to this, I have much to do for myself to prepare myself and my affairs to meet the solution of this great issue that is a very serious contention between me and all the other Hands of the Faith. I am not floundering about in thought. I know exactly what I am doing and why I am doing it. But I have no idea of how it will all come out.
I know that in the natural course of events, I have not many years ahead of me in this world. Notwithstanding this, however, I know beyond a doubt that the last [years] of my life here upon earth will be the most important all around, and that now I should plan and do what I can to be in as good spiritual and physical and mental condition as possible right up to the end of my natural life. Therefore, with this intention in view, I want now at this time to take some time off away from Haifa to return here for the next conclave of the Hands of the Faith.
[Extracts from Daily Observations, p. 84,85]
And he was approximately 91 when he wrote:
Guardian Explains Personal Estate
The Guardian has modest but adequate independent means for his own support and that of his adopted son, Joseph Pepe, who lives with him and who is personally serving him.
[Glad Tidings Vol. VI, No. 2 October, 1965-Mashiyyat, 122 B.E., p. 1]
And 94 when he wrote:
You write that your mother lived in her 95th year. I am now in my 95th year (5x19=95). I have not always been careful of my life, but now as I grow older I am more careful. I now have an adopted Son half my age and he is caring and looking out for me most devotedly.
[CMR to Nancy Hardaway 6/10/68, p. 3,4]
22
When Mason referred to Pepe it was in the context of someone who was taking care of Mason as he was getting older.
Here are some quotes from Pepe's perspective, including Pepe describing how he served Mason in his old age:
You see, Jean, I never realized how profoundly sincere my love for Mason was. It suddenly dawned upon me: "See here, I really loved that man THAT much".....I didn't know! Then I began to think of the the thousand and one things I ought to have done more than I did. When I try to tell others around me, here, such thoughts they laugh and remind me of what I did do. Even our doctor said that not even the Pope in Rome was better cared for than Mason. He was clean and sweet smelling all the time. We all of us who served him were always kissing him.
[Pepe to Jean Miller 2/20/74, p. 1]
Whenever Mason was ill, I'd sit up all night and plead with him; Mason, don't leave me alone now, I don't know what I'd do. Who will think of me, etc. He loved to feel close to me and when I'd tuck him in for the night, he always took my hand and pressing it he'd say: "Pepe, I'm blessed, to have you". With such an statement on his face, it was a joy to me. How can anyone believe or understand?
[Pepe to Jean Miller 2/20/74, p. 2]
It was not until after he issued his Proclamation that he entered the Valley of Knowledge for he needed me more than ever then and asked me to come to Italy with him -- I have his letter telling me: "I don't see how I can possibly manage without you"......Now he had assumed the reins of the Guardianship and it was an entirely different sentiment.....son spiritually fine.....
[Pepe to Jean Miller 2/20/74, p. 2]
When he asked me to make my home with him in order to care for him and to manage things for him, I was totally and absolutely convinced of his Mission in the Baha'i Faith and gave my wholehearted support and embraced the Baha'i Faith fully. Mason's dream was that I would succeed him even though I have always refused to accept such a thought from him.
23
During his trying years of conflict, no one was closer to Mason nor taken into his complete confidence as I was.
Finally, here are two quotes from letters attributed to Pepe that were found on the Yahoo "HeartoftheBahaiFaith" website maintained by supporters of Jacques Soghomonian:
I have great faith in you and if you do nothing for the rest of your life, you're safe and proven to me by your gesture that you have great spiritual wealth and when you sent your first letter I have asked God to credit to you and those you love a portion of whatever spiritual wealth might have been in store for me for the sacrifices I have made in His Cause and although I myself may not be worthy of achieving God's Kingdom -- for, I am very conscious of my own failing -- nevertheless, Mason considered what I was doing of great spiritual importance and so, I have a right to share that wealth with a person like yourself because you shared willingly of your own possessions on the human plane.
[Pepe to ? 4/10/74]
Many Baha'is resented and envied the fact that Mason Remey had placed all of his faith and trust in me. I first met Mason in 1950 and it was not till 1962 that I accepted to be adopted by him so that I might take care of him in his old age. I never violated that trust and he never doubted he had made the right choice in asking me to serve him. He was never concerned over his "choice".....but rather in the fact that I had "accepted". Our relationship was a happy and healthy one because of that understanding.
[Pepe to ? 9/23/81]
It appears the answer to the question "Why did Mason adopt Pepe?" was for the purpose of Pepe being Mason Remey's caretaker in his old age. That's the conclusion one comes to based on the available evidence.
There is one notable exception. In Pepe's letter to Doc of 7/24/75 is the clearest indication of Mason's intent for Pepe in relation to the guardianship--"Mason's dream was that I would succeed him..." What was Pepe's response?--"...I have always refused to accept such a thought from him." It could be argued that it doesn't matter what Pepe wanted--if Mason made Pepe his successor, Pepe had no choice in the matter. And there has been other evidence indicating Mason Remey did want Pepe to be his successor. But the fact remains that there was never any
24
authentic evidence for Pepe's appointment--not the medallion or other trinket, nor Mason's will and testament. No legitimate appointment of Pepe was made known during Mason's lifetime as stipulated in the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha.
Who did Mason intend to appoint?:
We understand that the W&T has two criteria for the guardianship--he must be a son and appointed. But Mason didn't understand this as already discussed. Since he didn't know how he was an Aghsan, Mason thought that his successor would only need to be appointed. The evidence indicates that Mason appointed Donald Harvey as his last, final and intended appointment to the guardianship. But in so doing, Mason ignored the other necessary criterion--the need to be a son--which makes his appointment of Donald Harvey null and void.
Here is the evidence for Mason's appointment of Donald Harvey:
In the Most Holy Name of El Baha,
I the Second Guardian of the Baha'i Faith hereby appoint Donald Harvey at my death to be my Successor the Third Guardian of the Faith.
Mason Remey
May 23rd 1967
Florence, Italy.
P.S.
May the Spirit of El Abha ever protect this line of Spiritual descent from Abdu'l Baha the Center of the Covenant of El Baha. C.M.R.
[CMR appointment of Donald Harvey 5/23/67]
More evidence of Mason's intention to appoint Donald Harvey is indicated in a follow-up letter to M.C. Timmerman:
I am in perfect health and I expect to live to a great age. The reason that I announce Donald Harvey to be my successor was to discourage those who were hoping to become Guardian of the Faith and who were intent on building themselves up to fill this position.
The reason that I chose Donald was because he is selfless. He is intent upon teaching the Faith without any thought of what he may get out of it for himself.
[CMR to M.C. Timmerman 8/18/67]
This appointment of Donald Harvey was made in May of 1967, five years
25
after Mason talked of the medallion as being an indicator and more than three years after Mason gave Joel Marangella his sealed envelope saying he was the next guardian and appointing Joel as President of Mason's sIBC. As Mason's written appointment of Donald Harvey came after these two previous method's, according to Mason's own words we are to "obey his last command first" which would have been Donald's appointment. Apparently Mason had second thoughts about appointing Joel Marangella and so he changed his mind, which Mason had the right to do. But whether he appointed them or not, neither Joel nor Donald were of the Aghsan lineage nor had they been adopted by Mason. We know the importance of that fact. But Mason didn't.
Pepe, also under the delusion of the appointed-only guardianship, supported Mason in his appointment of Donald Harvey:
I do accept Donald Harvey as Mason's successor because I, myself, have considered myself quite out of the Baha'i activities.
As for Donald Harvey; - you may be certain that no one on this earth - Since Mason's passing - is closer to me spiritually. He is a praiseworthy person and spiritually most unique. We both agreed on the question of successor and we have sufficient evidence in Mason's own hand to justify the stand we took and hold to still. That evidence goes hand in hand and beyond Mason's statement naming Donald his successor. Having lived in such close proximity to Mason for so long (since 1950) no doubt I came to know his mind and what he intended and why he acted as he did better than any living person. Therefore, I must necessarily (keeping in mind what I know) act according to the dictates of my heart, soul and mind. It is not my intention to insinuate that I believe what Mason meant or intended is to be final. However, until things are not clarified for me these are the convictions by which I must be guided.
Pepe talks about an agreement that was made between Pepe and Donald on the question of Mason's successor. This agreement was based on Mason's handwritten appointment of Donald in a letter found on the HeartoftheBahaiFaith website:
We have it in Mason's own handwriting that back in 1963, Joel was listed as third choice, Donald was second and I was first. My strong objections convinced Mason to make the changes he did later on. All the accusations against me are very unjust for I have always wanted to step aside and never push myself
26
forward. That is why I cannot understand those who do push themselves forward. Donald is not like that in any way. He may lack worldly qualities, but there is no doubt of his spiritual superiority.
[Pepe to ? 9/23/81]
Pepe was the one who urged Mason to change his intentions concerning Pepe's appointment, which Mason later did by appointing Donald Harvey. The evidence "in Mason's own handwriting" must refer to the handwritten appointment of Donald Harvey by Mason. We have no such handwritten evidence for Pepe's appointment so that couldn't have been what Pepe meant.
More quotes from Pepe found on HeartoftheBahaiFaith website:
My last letter to Donald urged him to take very special care of himself physically so that he might go on for years keeping alive the Guardianship. Mason Remey, himself, had great expectations about immediate developments amongst his supporters. As time went by and he realized how poorly the friends were behaving, he gave up his projects one by one and was content to simply live on and to keep the Institution of Guardianship alive. The strength of his convictions never waned for his justification lay in the fact that no one else besides himself could claim the Guardianship and he held firm to that conviction to the very end. I frankly doubt Donald will be able to do much more than that during his own lifetime.
[Pepe to ? 9/23/81]
What [Mason] hoped for and had complete confidence in was that, eventually, the mass of believers, wrongly influenced, would "come to their senses" through independent investigation of the truth accepting him as Shoghi Effendi's legitimate successor. Not having accomplished that, he did the only thing left him to do; - he appointed his successor (Donald Harvey) thus preserving the Institution of Guardianship of the Baha'i Faith, trusting that in due time, others would arise to solve the problem.
[Pepe Statement to non-BUPC 7/19/90]
Mason Remey appointed Donald Harvey to succeed him in a statement he made public (written in his own hand). Any objection to that appointment should have been made to Mason at that time.
[Pepe's Statement to non-BUPC 7/19/90]
It is evident that since Leland Jensen was unable to convince
27
Mason Remey and Donald Harvey after him to accept his spiritual deliberations, as a last resort he has put up my name as Joseph Pepe Remey, AGHSAN as the rightful successor of Mason Remey, AGHSAN, the adopted son of Abdu'l Baha. All this was done without my knowledge, approval or permission. My many pleas asking that he refrain from encouraging his supporters to address me as "Guardian" have gone unheeded. Nowhere can he, or his supporters, show that I have ever agreed to fit into their "schemes". My only purpose of becoming involved at all was that I believed (as I have repeated to them many times) that they were dedicated to upholding Mason Remey's determination to preserve the Institution of Guardianship and further that anyone who accepted Mason Remey's Claim to the Guardianship should turn to Donald Harvey and the only legitimate successor to Mason Remey.
[Pepe's Statement to non-BUPC 7/19/90]
What Doc said about Donald's appointment:
You tell me that you have evidence in Mason's own hand appointing Donald to be the third Guardian and that you hold to that. But then you have the same evidence that before Donald's appointment, Mason appointed Joel Marangella. Why don't you hold to that? It is because Donald was appointed after Joel. Certainly you must be in possession of copies of Mason's directives to the Baha'i world. In one of them, he clearly stated that his last directives and appointments cancel out previous ones that are in conflict with his later directives. Whether or not it is in his own handwriting has nothing to do with it, for no place in the Sacred Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha does it state that the Guardian must appoint his successor in his own handwriting. Shoghi Effendi appointed his successor in a telegram, and we hold to that.
[Doc's letter to Pepe November 1975, p. 22]
We would have accepted that appointment made by Mason had Mason not appointed you to be Guardian several weeks before he passed, or that if you could have shown that Mason had appointed Donald again somewhere in that interim of several weeks from the time that Mason appointed you to when he passed on.
The violation of Donald shows us that a written document does not take precedence over a non-written document, that the last appointment
28
takes precedence over all previous appointments, and that for an appointment to be valid the person must already be a Branch (Aghsan) before the appointment. Otherwise, in the future when the Kingdom is established in this world and in operation, perhaps a thousand people may come with slips of paper in their hands claiming to be guardians or regent guardians by claiming that the guardian had appointed them, without them being a natural or adopted descendant of you, Joseph Pepe Remey Aghsan. Also Donald would re-establish the Babi Administration under his guardianship, for he stated that it is not time yet to re-establish the Administration.
[The Most Mighty Document 4/21/79, p. 29,30]
Doc was under the impression that the medallion put around Pepe's neck in 1974 was Mason's last method of appointment, not realizing Mason's 1965 directive ordering the Baha'is to ignore the medallion as an indicator for the next guardian. So in fact the medallion cannot be considered Mason's last appointment which makes Donald's appointment the last one. But as Doc points out Donald can't be the guardian because Donald's not Aghsan.
Several weeks before he passed he took the necklace, with the medallion, from around his neck and placed it around the neck of his adopted son, Joseph Pepe Jr. Remey, it seemed to be such a burden for him to wear. Mason Remey never gave this medalion nor any other medallion to any one else. Thus, Joseph Pepe Remey is the third Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, being not only the last one, but the only ever appointed to succeed the second guardian should he not be killed in a common catastrophe.
[Doc's Outline of Medallion circa 6/75, p. 3]
I know that when Mason appointed Joel Marangella, it was with the intention to protect the guardianship in case Mason died unexpectedly or due to a catastrophe. However, Mason makes no such reference in his appointment of Donald Harvey. In his letter to Ms. Timmerman, Mason said he appointed Donald to put an end to others vying for that position. So this quote from Doc is inaccurate as Mason did appoint Donald Harvey unconditionally.
Perhaps when we look at all of Mason's appointments we might decide to throw out the last two so that we can have the medallion be the indicator since it was the only appointment that went to a son of Mason's. If we do this, then we are ignoring an explicit command from Mason to obey his last directive first to ignore the medallion. Do we look at the medallion because that was the one Mason intended or because it's the one we want? The evidence seems to indicate Mason intended Donald Harvey to succeed him due to Joel's attempted usurpation
29
and Pepe's unwillingness to be Mason's successor. If we want to support Pepe because he's Mason's only son, we're no different than Marangella's followers, Donald Harvey's followers, or Rex King's followers who support their "guardian" despite the lack of fulfilling both criteria for the succeeding guardian from the Will and Testament.
Everyone was looking to Mason for his appointed successor. But Mason didn't understand how he fulfilled the two-part criteria--thinking he had been appointed-only by Shoghi Effendi and not understanding how he was grafted into the Aghsan lineage. Even though Mason was the legal, legitimate guardian, Mason did not know that for himself. Therefore in his last appointment Mason illegitimately names the non-Aghsan Donald Harvey as his successor--via appointment only. Even though we know that Donald Harvey couldn't be the guardian because Donald was not a son of Mason Remey, Mason didn't acknowledge that criterion and he appoints Donald nevertheless! What a mess!!
This situation screams for the need for the Establisher to reestablish what Mason Remey threw out--the Aghsan criterion. The Establisher is who we need to look to for the next guardian. According to his own words, that was his mission. What could be a better reason for God sending His Establisher, Jesus the High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek, who's mission it was to bring forth the Branch that was thrown out by the Hands and Mason Remey?
Now I would like to take the remainder of this letter to examine the evidence you put forth for being the guardian, starting with your evidence for being Aghsan based on Pepe's "My Boy" declarations.
My Boy
...in 1991, after the Universal House of Justice was re-established as the second International Baha'i Council in Missoula, Montana, on January 9th, 1991, that 'Abdu'l-Baha's grandson, Pepe, sent me a series of Letters from Florence, Italy, continuing the Aghsan Lineage through me in the same exact way and manner in which 'Abdu'l-Baha continued the Aghsan lineage in his father before him according to Baha'i Law using the terms "My dear Boy" and "MY BOY" always in quotes to show their translation back into Persian as "My dear AGHSAN" and "MY AGHSAN" (Florence, Italy, 22 August, 1991; Florence Italy, 10/5/91). This then became another test for some of the friends even as it did at the time of Mason and Shoghi. When this had occurred Dr. Jensen was elated for he saw that Pepe was continuing the Aghsan Lineage in me making me the Heir Apparent at that time in 1991.
[ben Joseph Aghsan letter, Neal Chase]
30
Aghsan or ghusn being translated into English as "My Dear Son" or "My Dear Boy" being "My Dear Aghsan," etc., even as the word "seed" in Hebrew or Greek has been variously translated into English in the Bible as "offspring," or "descendants," etc.
[ben Joseph Aghsan letter, Neal Chase]
Neal, you said since 1991 you have been aware you would be the next guardian based upon Pepe's use of the term "My dear Boy" in reference to you. In your letter to me, you indicated you began receiving letters with this designation dated August 22nd, 1991. But a week prior to you receiving the first of these letters from Pepe, Danny S. was being thrown out of the faith for putting forth the same exact claim--the "Danny boy" letters he received from Pepe.
First is an example of the "dear boy" term used to refer to Danny S. by Pepe:
Do not take this as a personal affront to you, but sincerely, under the circumstances, my advice to you, dear boy, is to remain faithful to your spiritual ties to Leland Jensen as I have no alternative to offer but what I have always told others who sought my advice.
[Pepe to Danny S. 9/7/90 p. 13]
Besides this there was at least one other time when Pepe referred to Danny as "my boy."
What happened next with Danny is gleaned from the following quotes taken from a letter written by the sIBC on this matter:
The list that connects you two up with Danny S. is long and damaging. The evidence is glaring that your motive for doing this stems from promoting him as the next infallible guardian on the flimsy words written to Danny by Pepe telling him that he was his "boy." This was interpreted by Danny that Pepe was calling him his son, and that if Pepe should die immediately, he would be Pepe's successor.
[sIBC to Amy & Sara 8/15/91 p. 53]
Likewise we have it from the highest authorities that Danny has been promoting himself to be the next infallible interpreter guardian based on
31
the claim that he has at least one letter from Pepe calling him "his boy." Of course in order to be the next guardian he would have to be legally adopted in a court of law in this country, evidence which Danny has not produced; and even then Danny would have to be appointed to that position by Pepe within Pepe's lifetime.
[sIBC to Amy & Sara 8/15/91 p. 54]
In 1991 the sIBC clearly saw through this "my boy" stuff that Danny was putting forth.
Neal, you wrote:
... Pepe, sent me a series of Letters from Florence, Italy, continuing the Aghsan Lineage through me...using the terms "My dear Boy" and "MY BOY"... When this had occurred Dr. Jensen was elated for he saw that Pepe was continuing the Aghsan Lineage in me making me the Heir Apparent at that time in 1991.
Your statement that Doc was "elated" because he saw that Pepe was continuing the Aghsan lineage in you simply does not correspond with the facts as evidenced by the following from Doc in the "Danny boy" issue:
The same thing is happening today. Danny S. has been telling a number of the friends that Pepe is going to appoint him to be the next guardian on the basis that Pepe had written to him calling him his "boy". He interprets this as an adoption presumptuously, and if Pepe should die forthwith that he would be the next guardian. On this feeble Danny "boy" claim, he has gathered a very small number of fools around him ready to do any dirty work that could possibly enhance his status with Pepe. Their number one task is to go against me, in the same vein of those foolish delegates at that Convention in 1963. The second reason is that I would be opposed to such a scheme as I was with Rex. I can see his Satanic motives. Danny is not just satisfied of being the secretary of the newly formed IBC/UHJ, just as Rex was not satisfied being the secretary of the newly formed NSA 1963. He has to be the guardian. And what's more Danny wants to be the infallible guardian, as Mason had claimed for himself. Then he would be able to eliminate me and perhaps the IBC/UHJ as Mason did, setting himself up as the King of the entire world. But like Rex he wouldn't be satisfied with this. He would then try to place himself above Baha'u'llah as Rex King did. But could he be satisfied with this--Hell No! He would want to be above GOD ALMIGHTY! These are very sick people and need to be under psychiatric care. Who else in the Bible is like them?
32
You guessed it. It was Lucifer!
Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
For thou hasts said in thine heart, 'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, the sides of the north:
I will ascend: above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
[Isaiah 14:11-15]
Danny is not the only one that has been claiming to be the next guardian. I have about two people a year who seriously make that claim. There are a number more also, that make the claim that they are Elijah, the return of Jesus and a number of notable characters. Most of their claims are blown away after several hours of talking with them. Most base their claims upon a gut feeling--they just know that they are because of their opinion of themselves, etc.--but they have no proof or tangible evidence to back up their claim. That is why their bubbles are easily burst, and they return to normalcy.
[Doc to Charles Gaines 7/30/91 pp. 44,45]
The highlighted text above was emphasized to show Doc's dissatisfaction with Danny and no personal affront nor judgment was intended on my part. But note that Doc refers to the "My Boy" claim as being "feeble" and "Satanic."
More from Doc in the same letter:
Now Charles you can easily see that Danny is taking the same road to destruction, by making the claim to successorship on the very feeble basis that he was called "his boy" by Pepe. In order to get brownie points with Pepe he is doing the same damn thing. He whispers around that he was called "his boy" by Pepe, and on this flimsy ground he is going to be the next guardian. This got him some cohorts, such as two women in Minneapolis to carry out his dirty work of making a savage attack on me and the Liaison officer in an attempt to discredit me and the newly formed second International Baha'i Council. He has been trying to keep it a secret that he is behind all this. The road that he has taken is the very same that Rex King and Brent had taken. His plan will fail and he will find himself and the women, as well as other collaborators, at a complete loss.
[Doc to Charles Gaines 7/30/91 p. 47]
33
I don't see how your description of Doc's reaction of being "elated" upon hearing Pepe refer to you as his "Boy" corresponds with the facts related to Danny S.. Doc wrote in no uncertain terms that the "My Boy" title has no weight and has got to go.
Neal, don't be the broken record of history repeating itself:
In like manner, in this day, the dark and clandestine forces of Satan have rebelled again like Lucifer, the great star fallen from heaven, in a new claimant to be the next guardian with a letter from Pepe saying that he is his "boy" which the claimant interprets to mean that he himself is being chosen to be the succeeding guardian thus making him the great Satan of the day of Jesus the High Priest. You two have eagerly become entrenched in this sewer of sedition as did the members of that National Spiritual Assembly that were 'kissing butt' for their own personal gain. The violation has re-sounded as it did in 1963, blow for blow, and the storm has reoccurred like it did at the passing of 'Abdu'l-Baha.
[sIBC to Amy & Sara 8/15/91 pp. 10,11]
Neal, what I recall about the response to Amy and Sara is that there was so much haranguing going on in those council meetings in composing this letter that Doc designated you to write it. That's what I recall and I may be wrong. If you were responsible for the text of this letter, I'm dumbfounded as to how you could make the same claim today that was put down so severely by not only you and the sIBC, but Doc also.
Neal, you are a guiding light for the spreading of this faith. No one can teach like you. No one else has the capacity or experience to promulgate this message. But that does not make you the guardian. Please take the words above to heart and come down from the pedestal you have placed yourself. "Oh servants! Do not make the cause of order a cause for disorder, nor the means of unity a means for disunity."
Where I am living I am on rat patrol duty. I have been baiting a trap right outside a rat hole and so far I have disposed of eleven rats, three in one day. I am in wonder as those little rats leave through that hole to meet their fate, one by one, that the remaining rats don't realize with each disappearing comrade that Death and Hades are on the other side of that hole. But despite this they continue to go, one by one.
34
Neal, Danny S. has gone through the "My Boy" rat hole of Pepe's and has not returned. Why do you want to go that same route? We already had that test and it's as easy as falling off a log. Learn from Danny's mistake--don't be another bad example.
Pepe's Ring
Later when I returned from New York area with the token of the lapis Lazuli ring, he had me show this to all the people at a public forum. I was devastated. I had hoped Pepe would pass this on to someone else, like Danny S., or Glenn Goldman or someone else like that. But they were both cut off, and neither of them, and no one else alive in the world today, qualifies; and neither of them, and no one else alive in the world today, fulfills the two-part criteria. The lapis Lazuli ring, which represents the throne of David, is the Baha'i ringstone seal of the Greatest Name. This prophesied token of appointment seals the deal, so to speak -- and those who accepts this are sealed on the forehead, the intellect, with the knowledge of God, knowing His Covenant and His plan and who the living guardian is, having passed this Test.
[ben Joseph Aghsan letter, Neal Chase]
FACT: In the Bible, the throne of David is represented by the sapphire stone, which in HEBREW is Lapis Lazuli?
"...there was the likeness of a throne [David's] in appearance like sapphire (footnote h; Hebrew Lapis Lazuli) Ez. 1:26, RSV.
"Then I looked and behold, on the firmament that was over the heads of the cherubim there appeared above them something like a sapphire [Lapis Lazuli] in the form resembling [representing] a throne [THE THRONE OF DAVID]. Ez. 10:1 RSV
FACT: In Haggai in chapter 2 verse 23 it states:
"In that day says the Lord of Hosts, I will take you, O Zerubbabel my servant, the son of Shealtiel [Doc wrote that Zerrubbabel, the son of Shealtiel represents the guardian in prophecy, read The Beast for this], says the Lord, and make you LIKE A SIGNET RING; for I HAVE CHOSEN YOU says the Lord of Hosts." (Hag. 2:23. RSV)
Therefore the token of the Lapis Lazuli RING is the prophesied token of appointment for the throne of King David.
[Dear Friend letter]
The throne is sapphire, not a ring. And the throne isn't literally sapphire but represents the Independent Investigation of the Truth:
35
"The second Basic Principle is: 'The Independent Investigation of Truth.' All must be free to seek out truth in their own way. The second foundation stone, the sapphire, is a clear blue, 'true blue,' and the color of faith, inspiration, loyalty and truth. Man must be free to soar in this "Dome of Heaven's blue truth," and see it with his own eyes."
Faith - Faith that the guardian has been established at the head of the IBC/UHJ by the Establisher, Dr. Jensen, and that this fact will eventually be recognized by all the believers
Inspiration - The guardian guides the IBC/UHJ by setting the agenda of the meetings
Loyalty - Loyalty to the Covenant and loyalty to Dr. Jensen
Truth - Truth conquers all
It's not about a trinket he may have in his possession that could be lost, stolen, reproduced, etc. and end up in the hands of a false claimant. Because it could be stolen or duplicated, a physical article or a personal belonging cannot represent the appointment of a successor. This is what Mason said. Neal, you're reading a lot more into this ring than there is.
A signet ring is used to stamp or seal official documents as a sign of authority and authenticity. Zechariah says that Zerubbabel is like a signet ring, not that he has a signet ring or a "lapus lazzuli" ring. It says that Zerubbabel himself IS the signet ring. In other words Zerubbabel is unquestionably the sign of God for all the world to see and this sign, or signet, distinguishes the true UHJ from all man-made, imaginary ones. A physical ring does not represent the Sign of God, but God's Chosen Representative does.
The ring seals the deal. According to Mason, neither the ring nor the medallion could represent an appointment because they could be stolen. It seals the fact that this is pure Satanic intent to attempt to usurp the guardianship for yourself. It is you taking this ring and using your personal interpretation to equate the sapphire ring to the combined Zerubbabel signet ring and the sapphire throne of David. This is the intellect twisting these two separate prophetic symbols into the significance of a physical ring that was left to you by Pepe.
Group Leader:
Dr. Jensen went along with the Test of Pepe and announced to the core group, and especially those on the sIBC, in both
36
public and in private, both verbally and in writing, as well as through his liaison reports in writing in the public minutes of the IBC, that I was the "Group Leader." The group didn't like this and rebelled, Anita going around town having secret meetings to back-bite me and undermine my role on the Council, and so forth, with Doc retaliating against this by proclaiming me to be "the Peter" of his apostles, the angel with the golden censer prophesied of in Revelation chapter 8, and his establisher, etc... Meanwhile, we continued to do the important work in the Cause set aside for us, and the Test of Pepe continued.
[ben Joseph Aghsan letter, Neal Chase]
Taken from the Public minutes of the sIBC meeting #34 2/29/92:
"2. Group Leader - Dr. Leland is the group leader through his guidance, however he is not present at the meetings. Dr. Leland believes the group needs a leader who is present at meetings to establish direction, focus and unification. As Dr. Leland stated Neal is Peter therefore he is the group leader because of his closeness to Dr. Leland."
What do you think the "Group Leader" of the sIBC is? Even though these other members knew Doc had appointed Neal into this position of guidance, whenever Neal tried to help the other members they would reject this and try to deny Neal was anything "over" them. The last meeting we attended with these violators, Neal reminded them all of this appointment from Doc.
[Proof for Guardian, Victor Woods]
Neal, if we go by the part of Doc's Liaison report quoted above by Victor, it sure appears like he's right about the significance of you being the Group Leader--that this title would mean that you are the guardian. But Victor left out the last part of that Liaison report. Here is the continuation of the report in its full context:
...His role in that capacity is that of an older brother and not as a dictator, he is not infallible. Just because he gives an opinion does not mean we have to agree with him, we still must vote our own conscience, but just give special consideration to what Neal says. Dr. Leland believes Neal has a special insight into what is going on, a foresight into the direction that we are taking and that he looks ahead for pitfalls. Still we cannot allow ourselves to be manipulated by anyone. None of us should follow Neal blindly.
Taken in the full context of the Liaison Report, Victor is jumping to
37
conclusions here--assuming that "Group Leader" means guardian. Doc tells us to consider Neal as a "big brother." I do not consider my big brother as being my guardian--legally or spiritually. But my big brother is someone I turn to for advice, just as I did you. Doc tells us that no one should follow you blindly just because you're the Group Leader. And yet that is what Victor is asking us to do--follow you blindly as the guardian BECAUSE you are the Group Leader.
Peter:
Everyone knew that Doc entitled Neal "Peter" of the Apostles which means "Rock" or "Stone".
"For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ." (1 Corinthians 8:4-5)
Have we also forgotten what "Christ" means? "An anointed descendant of David".
[Proof for Guardian, Victor Woods]
Have we also forgotten logic? Victor's reasoning goes like this:
Peter = Rock
Rock = Christ
Therefore Peter = Christ.
And as Neal = Peter, therefore Neal = Christ.
But Peter was not Christ--an anointed descendant of David. Peter's knowledge of Christ did not make him Christ, but made him stand-out head and shoulders above the other apostles. Neal, you being Peter does not make you Christ, but it's your knowledge and understanding that is significant. This is why Doc named you the "Group Leader," or the big brother. But you've taken these titles of "Peter" and "Group Leader" and blown them way out of proportion, just as the Hands took the title "Chief Stewards" and used it in an attempt to glorify themselves over the believers.
The Eternal Our Champion:
The day comes, the Eternal promises, when I raise up a true scion [Branch] of David, to reign both royally and ably, to enforce law and justice in the land; under him Judah shall be safe, and Israel live secure, and this shall be his title,
'The Eternal our CHAMPION.'"
(Jeremiah 23:1-6; Moffat's bible translation)...
From What's in a Name by Gayle Palmquist (or any name book for that matter, look it up yourself)
"NEAL - Literal meaning: CHAMPION"
[Proof for Guardian, Victor Woods]
38
If we're going to use the Moffat translation, why not use the whole phrase? It says, "The ETERNAL our 'Neal'." Neal, are you eternal? Or is the throne of David eternal? The KJV says "The Lord our Righteousness." What the Branch represents and what is eternal is justice--once the Branch is established in the world as the Lord's Representative, he will be the distinguished Sign for True Justice in the world as opposed to all those false attempts out there. I'm looking at my Bible concordance for the word 'righteousness' and the closest thing to Moffat's definition is 'victory' which would probably apply more to 'Victor' than 'Neal'. The overwhelming use of the word is 'justice, rightness, righteousness.' I estimate that 99% of its uses were in one of these three ways. And the definition that is closest to 'champion'--'victory'--was never used at all. Unless the name 'Neal' can be shown to mean 'justice' or 'righteousness' I cannot accept your explanation as proof for your name fulfilling the Jeremiah 23 prophecy "The Lord our Righteousness / The Eternal our Champion."
Heir Apparent:
It is really irrelevant what Doc thought on this matter as he, like Shoghi Effendi, cannot appoint someone to the throne of David, he himself is not in possession of, but also like Shoghi Effendi, Doc was firm in the Covenant. This is why he placed my name on the list of rankings above that of the vice-president and below that of Pepe. This is the position for the Heir Apparent.
[ben Joseph Aghsan, Neal Chase]
...Pepe PROCLAIMED me when he sent those Aghsan Letters to me when I lived in Deer Lodge, Montana, which I showed to Doc. When Doc saw that Pepe had PROCLAIMED me, as the Heir Apparent, he went forward and PROCLAIMED me as well, welcoming me to the second IBC/UHJ and placing me at the head of the body on the list of rankings above that of the vice-president and below that of the living guardian Pepe.
[ben Joseph Aghsan, Neal Chase]
Doc helped God in bringing forth Neal by thoroughly educating him through close association with him and established Neal as the highest
39
ranking member of the sIBC without a specific officer position being named.
[Proof for Guardian, Victor Woods]
The title "Heir Apparent" is not something that can be found in the Writings or in Shoghi Effendi's administration. No one of authority--whether Baha'u'llah, 'Abdu'l-Baha, Doc or a Guardian--indicated that such a title or position was a way to appoint a successor or was even a part of the Faith. "Heir Apparent" is your self-appointed title.
Doc said he followed the pattern of Shoghi Effendi when he set up the sIBC. Just as Shoghi Effendi named officers to that Council, so too did Dr. Jensen name the same officers. In Shoghi's pattern there is no indication of a "Group Leader" or "Heir Apparent." Thus no special weight or importance can be attached to that title as it never existed before Doc. And as you pointed out, Doc cannot appoint anyone to the throne of David anyway. So any title Doc gave to a member of that body, other than the officers, cannot be construed as having any unique authority relevant to the sIBC.
For the past three years I have been researching and preparing to make an appeal to the sIBC's decision against me. I had thought that was what all this work was going to be for. But instead God has been preparing me for the purpose of appealing directly to you--not to overturn the decision--but to appeal to you to turn back from the destructive path you are heading.
Neal, you have an important and essential role to play in the Faith but not as the guardian.
It may be embarrassing to come forward now, but better now than in the next life if you continue on the path you're on.
Omar was one of the most firm and loyal supporters of Muhammad, but when his test came he fell from his high position to the lowest and most abominable state. 'Ali and his descendants were the Imams (spiritual leaders) and Muhammad had designated for him to be the secular leader as well. Omar, by changing the law of Muhammad, brought to life a great heresy for the succession to be elected instead of descendants of Muhammad.
[Doc to Patrick Labbe 6/9/92 p. 25]
What you are attempting is on the order of Omar, that fallen star, who opened
40
the door of abomination leading to the bottomless pit. If your plan is allowed to run its course to completion, it would be a great heresy against God and Dr. Jensen because it would be the enactment of your man-made plan instead of God's intended Plan.
"The greatest derangement of the mind is for you to believe in something because you wish it to be so,"--an edited quote of Louis Pasteur.
Why would anyone want to be the guardian? As Shoghi Effendi and Mason Remey demonstrated it is not a glamourous position. And yet you are putting forth bizarre, easily refutable evidence in an attempt to be recognized as the guardian for today. You have taken a few facts and distorted them to such a degree that you are unable to see how easily refutable they are. Recognize this as the wrong, deranged, twisted thinking that it is so that we can get back to the important matters of establishing the Faith in the world.
The source of your problems can be gleaned from those letters Pepe sent you referring to you as his "boy." There's a lot more to those quotes than just that designation he gave you.
I might call you "my boy" too. That is not a "carrot" for you and I don't expect you to "butter-up" for it.
[Pepe to Neal, 8/22/91]
Why did Pepe put quotes around the words he did? He was referencing Doc's letter to Charles Gaines that he'd just received a few days earlier:
Now Charles you can easily see that Danny is taking the same road to destruction, by making the claim to successorship on the very feeble basis that he was called "his boy" by Pepe. In order to get brownie points with Pepe he is doing the same damn thing. He whispers around that he was called "his boy" by Pepe, and on this flimsy ground he is going to be the next guardian.
[Doc to Charles Gaines 7/30/91, p. 47]
Then like Rex and Danny [Brent] starts to interpret the correspondence that he receives from Pepe and fantasizes himself being chosen by Pepe, by the things that Pepe writes, or perhaps by the carrot that Pepe dangles in front of him and he takes the bait and goes for it.
[Doc to Charles Gaines 7/30/91, p. 45,46]
41
A year ago at the gathering here in Missoula, I was mentioning that I was about ready to reestablish the IBC, and that Brent, Amy and others were candidates for it but there were certain conditions attached to it. They had to establish a strong center by teaching the faith and to write a research paper advancing the Cause. As Brent had no intentions of doing that, and as it became clear that he was not going to make it, he then decided to butter up to Pepe.
[Doc to Charles Gaines 7/30/91, p. 46]
Pepe had a habit of putting quotes around words used in other letters. This will prove important in a moment.
In subsequent letters to you, Pepe continued stressing the "my boy" theme that had gotten Danny in such hot water:
Copy for "MY BOY" Neal Chase.
[Pepe to Neal, 8/23/91]
Going over my records I see Opal contributed $25.00
I'll ask Mason to pray (intercede) for her too. Would you like to BUY some INDULGENCES Too--my boy?-- Pepe
[Pepe to Neal, 9/9/91]
P.S. Pepe still has patience with you, Neal. Shall I adopt you? Be a good "Boy" now. Please make the best you can from these scraps. Pepe
[Pepe to Neal, 10/3/91]
He mentions giving you some "scraps" after asking if he should adopt you and calling you "Boy" again. Typically when someone says they're giving you some scraps, it's a reference to tempting or leading someone on, like throwing them a bone.
Pepe continues this same sort of leading on, but in this final quote he's much more blunt. He says:
Dear Neal "My dear Boy" My purpose is to "BOMBARD" you & your EDUCATOR with a dose of your own Medicine. Pepe
[Pepe to Neal, 10/5/91]
Why did Pepe capitalize and put in quotes the word "bombard"? If the pattern holds true, than there was another letter with the word "bombard" in it. The only one I could find was the following letter from Pepe:
42
The fact is that my numerous pleas, asking [Dr. Jensen] to refrain from coercing me into the role of Guardian, have been categorically ignored while his supporters were encouraged to address letters to me as their guardian -- as you have done.
It has not been, and will never be my intention to contest the spiritual convictions or to hinder the progress of the spiritual aims of anyone. However, when I am bombarded with argumentations based on distorted facts and not consulted or interrogated about the validity of those facts, how can I be expected to give credence and allegiance to them?
[Pepe to Danny S., 5/18/90]
If Pepe's intention was to "bombard" you and Doc with a dose of "your own medicine," perhaps something can be gleaned from what he said about being bombarded with distorted facts. The word 'distort' means:
To twist out of a proper or natural relation of parts; misshape. To give a false or misleading account of; misrepresent. To cause to work in a twisted or disorderly manner; pervert.
[American Heritage Dictionary]
What could be the distorted facts Pepe referred to? Possibly the different ways we tried to cajole Pepe to take an active role as the guardian: Using the hair and the blood token to convince Pepe that Mason inherited the lineage; asking Pepe about the whereabouts of the medallion and Baha'u'llah's ring; 'Abdu'l-Baha's "Dear Aghsan" letters to Mason that indicated he was adopted by 'Abdu'l-Baha; written exhortations that he come forward and be the guardian; naming Pepe as a possible plaintiff in the court case in Israel. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with these points, but in Pepe's mind he apparently thought we had distorted these things to serve our purposes. Here is what Pepe said on some of these points:
The persons you claim I hurt were encourage by you to address me as Guardian and it would have been sheer hypocricy on my part to receive them in that guise. and, as to my quote from 'Abdu'l-Baha, remember that I am not Baha'u'llah, nor 'Abdu'l-Baha, nor Shoghi Effendi, nor Mason Remey, nor Leland Jensen, nor Joseph Pepe Remey AGHSAN. I am Joseph Pepe Remey and have no intention nor obligation to take up the battle of the spiritual convictions of others.
In reading over what you wrote on Page 20 of your letter referring to certain dreamers desiring to become Guardian of the Faith, the idea came
43
to me that you might select one such person manifesting those qualities you deem worthy in substitution of the ADVERSE, HARANGUING, DENSE, LETHARGIC, etc. etc., individual that you described me to be.... Prepare the necessary adoption papers conforming to your requirements allowing me to adopt that person SPIRITUALLY, thus passing on to him the AGHSAN lineage that you claim Mason Remey received from 'Abdu'l-Baha and I from Mason. What could be simpler? Any Inspired Explanation and your VERY MUCH DISTURBED believers may have THEIR guardian and no longer be troubled by all you admonish me for in the first paragraph of your letter.
The real CAUSE OF THE DILEMMA THAT HAS BEEN CONFUSING THE PEOPLE OF BAHA' is more likely due to your categorically ignoring my numerous pleas asking you to refrain from coercing me into the role of Guardian rather than any failure to act on my part. Instead, you encouraged your supporters to address letters to me as THEIR guardian - something I never wanted, encouraged or agreed to.
My contracts with [Dr. Jensen's] claims center, primarily, on his insistence that 'Abdu'l-Baha adopted Mason Remey as his son and that Shoghi Effendi appointed him successor to the Guardianship. These assertions are not legal. They are spiritual proclamations based on a claim of divinely transmitted knowledge of God's truth.
[Pepe to Danny S., 5/18/90]
...Re: court cases; - someone sent me a copy of your "Consultation with Israeli Law Firm Ben Zion and Carmon" urging me to disassociate myself from an enterprise that would inevitably expose me to ridicule. My name appeared in that statement unbeknownst to me. To an uninformed reader, it gives the impression that I was behind the whole affair or, at least, that it was given my approval. You know that to be false; - having had nothing whatsoever to do with the matter for which neither my opinion nor approval was sought. Would you consider such behavior "Baha'i Tactics"?
[Pepe to Danny S., 6/15/90]
Neal, if Pepe's intent was to give you and Doc a dose of "your own medicine" and he saw your medicine as "distorted," then his intention was to give you information that might be "twisted," "misrepresented," or "perverted" as well. For God's sake! Pepe even SAYS that was his intention and he set about doing it! Pepe turned around and used our "medicine" on us by referring to different
44
people as "My Boy" (Danny S.) and as the "Guardian" (Patrick Labbe). Others who were no doubt influenced by Pepe included Amy Ikonen, Sara Toole, Brent Mathieu and Charles Gaines. And you.
On the one hand Pepe was denying over and over that he was the guardian. On the other he called you his "Boy" and told you, "Shall I adopt you?" Why would he do this? He was hoping you'd distort and twist what he was saying so as to think you would be the next guardian even though Pepe didn't consider himself the guardian at all. Pepe was treating this like a game, luring you like a flirt might wink or "make eyes" at someone. He was playing you for the fool.
The most amazing thing is at one time you were actually able to see through Pepe's schemes. In a letter to Patrick Labbe you wrote:
Pepe uses several tactics to delude his followers into accepting and obeying him blindly without question or reason. The first is his constant barrage of lies designed to muddle and confuse. The second is his constant name dropping of his adopted father Mason Remey which he uses to promote his own ideas and justify his violation of the Will and Testament....
The third tactic he uses...is to lure other people with the thinking that they will be the one that will be next in line. Thus he has attracted through this tactic a string of wannabe world dictators and power sucking sycophants all delirious for a chance to step into despot shoes for themselves....
Thus people like Brent Matthew, Danny S. and others all went down the tubes turning themselves into "wannabe" guardians.... However, I see the wisdom in this as keeping power hungry and corrupt people away from the Faith who would only try to take it over for themselves and corrupt this message anyway. Thus Pepe has become a sort of magnet of corruption attracting corrupted people that the pure in heart and those with the intellect could never possibly succumb to. But those seeking position, leadership and power for themselves flee from God and the from out the shadow of His Cause into the arms of this waiting violator in the hopes that they may get a piece of his pie.
[Neal Chase to Patrick Labbe, July, 1992, pp. 24-26]
Neal, you didn't need me to write this letter. You had the answer all along. All you needed to do was go back and read what you wrote in the early 90's. Back then you recognized what Pepe was up to. But you fell for it anyway. It makes me think of the verses from Revelation:
...I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first.
45
Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first.
[Revelation 2:4,5 RSV]
Neal, I hope you were able to read and understand this letter with the spirit it was intended. My hope is that you will take this seriously and retract your claim as the guardian and get on to the important work of spreading the message of this Cause to the world.
In service to God and loyalty to the Lamb,
Dave Cornell
46
Appendix A:
FROM THE GUARDIAN
Florence, Italy
6 February, 1964
At times of Crisis at sea or in War, the last order of the Captain of the ship or of the General in charge of battle must be the first order to be obeyed. All previous orders being temporarily set aside.
This same principle should be adhered to by the Baha'is under the Guardianship, present conditions being what they are. These conditions are constantly changing and the Guardian's instructions must necessarily be changing to meet the needs which new circumstances may bring.
Each of the Guardian's letters is dated and signed by him. The friends should follow the last instructions first, forgetting those outlined in previous letters as these may quickly become outdated by new events. Where doubts arise, steps should be taken by the friends to determine which previous instructions may still be considered as binding upon them and which should be abandoned. If this is not done in the spirit of cooperation and understanding, a great deal of unnecessary confusion will arise and the friends will find themselves at odds with each other. The purpose for this statement by the Second Guardian is to avoid all such situations in the future.
Even amongst the friends under the Guardianship, there may be some who either innocently or otherwise may be circulating and insisting upon obedience to their own interpretations of the teachings. Let no one heed their admonitions....
[The Glad Tidings, Vol. IV, No. 8; March, 1964; Baha, 120 B.E.; p. 1]
Doc verified this obey-last-command-first directive of Mason's in a 1975 letter to Pepe:
Certainly you must be in possession of copies of Mason's directives to the Baha'i world. In one of them, he clearly stated that his last directives and appointments cancel out previous ones that are in conflict with his later directives.
[Doc's letter to Pepe November 1975, p. 22]
Therefore, even though Mason may have commanded the Baha'is in 1961-62 to turn to the one with the medallion after his passing, he later did away with this method of appointment in 1965. According to Mason's own words, we must obey his last command first and "forget" the nine-pointed medallion as the way to recognize his successor.
[Click to go back to reference]
47