“Our Cause is sorely trying, highly perplexing; none can bear it except a favorite of heaven, or an inspired Prophet, or he whose faith God hath tested.” –Baha’u’llah
August 31, 2009
To whom it may concern:
Not long after the passing of Dr. Jensen, conflict and disunity arose among the ranks of his appointed Apostles. Great spiritual tests ensued. Like the tests of previous generations, issues of the Covenant predominated. Among these issues, the succession of the Aghsan Guardianship emerged as one of the main points of dispute.
Discovering the identity of the Guardian of the Cause is important, of course, but far more important is developing a broad and deep understanding of the Covenant, and then adhering to its standards. `Abdu’l-Baha said:
“The Covenant of God in this day of manifestation is a lifeboat and ark of salvation. All true followers of the Blessed Perfection are sheltered and protected in this ark. Whoever leaves it, trusting in his own will and strength, will drown and be destroyed.” (`Abdu’l-Baha, Star of the West, Vol.8, #17, p. 222)
These are powerful words and we should take them seriously. It is clear from a study of history that believers of every generation imagine themselves to be God’s Chosen, immune to the tests that follow. Yet at each point of passing of authority from one figure to the next, some believers ended up going astray. On more than one occasion, a vast majority of believers were swept up into a violation. For those who remained steadfast, however, each of these crisis points provided a great opportunity for deepening their knowledge of the Covenant.
While the Covenant is far more encompassing than the identity of any individual executive of the UHJ, and while it is incumbent on all believers to immerse themselves in the broad history and spirit of God’s Covenant, we know that the Guardianship is an ensign to the people. It is a way to identify the true Body. In this respect, the identity of the Guardian is particularly important for us today.
When seeking the identity of the Guardian of the Cause, we must first remember Dr. Jensen’s key teaching that the Aghsan Guardianship, as the continuation of the throne of David, will endure throughout the Baha’i Dispensation. Next, we must understand why Dr. Jensen taught that Mason Remey’s only legitimate successor was his adopted son, Joseph Pepe Remey. In accordance with the W&T, only Aghsan are eligible to be appointed, and therefore he has to be an Aghsan first before being appointed. Dr. Jensen was aware that Mason had sent out letters appointing others like Donald Harvey and Joel Marengella. But he knew that only Pepe could be the legitimate successor, because Pepe was Mason’s only son, and thus the only Aghsan, prior to his appointment.
It’s interesting to note that for many years the members of the BUPC accepted that Pepe was Mason’s successor without ever seeing direct evidence of an appointment. There was the story of the medallion, in which Mason explained that while the passing of the medallion was not the actual method of appointment, the believers would know who the next guardian was by who was in possession of the medallion. But none of us ever actually saw the medallion. And none of us ever saw any document in which Pepe was actually appointed. We took Dr. Jensen’s word for it that there was a letter somewhere in which Pepe is listed as one of three successors. It wasn’t until Dr. Jensen became the caretaker of the Guardian’s possessions (until such time as Pepe’s successor would come forth) that any of us witnessed first hand anything that could be considered a legitimate appointment document. Mason’s Last Will and Testament lists Pepe as the inheritor of all things of Mason’s, “tangible and intangible”. Certainly the word “intangible” would include Mason’s hereditary position of Guardian of the Cause.
The lesson was clear. Because of all these tests, we understand that the Guardianship will not come to an end even if the mass of believers fail to discern the truth of how the Covenant was fulfilled. Pepe was Mason’s successor regardless of the confusion that ensued as a result of Mason’s multiple appointments.
Now the next obvious question is, Who is Pepe’s successor? We have waited for 15 years since the passing of Pepe for a son to step forth with a clear appointment in hand. So far, there is no evidence that there is a biological son somewhere let alone one with a clear appointment by Pepe. That being the case, we need to look deeper. We know that the Guardianship did not come to an end. Is there any other evidence that may point to a solution to this conundrum?
We know that Pepe received and read many letters from Dr. Jensen and other members of the BUPC attempting to educate him into the criteria set forth in the Covenant with regards to successorship.
On July 25, 1991, Pepe wrote to me:
Mason was confident that in time the masses of Believers would come to the conclusion that they NEEDED and WANTED a Guardian. Had they done so during his lifetime, I should not have objected to being his successor. Mason would have delighted in Daniel Scherr’s conclusion regarding the Afnan and Aghsan branches and if it is true that Mason was, in fact, the adopted Aghsan son of `Abdu’l-Baha, and if that fact were to be generally accepted, then I should not be able to refuse being his only possible successor. If, instead, Mason’s Guardianship stands merely on his appointment by Shoghi Effendi as President of the IBC, then Donald Harvey is his rightful successor – whether Mason intended that or not makes no difference .... just as it makes no difference whether Shoghi Effendi intended Mason to be his successor or not. The fact will always remain that IF THE BAHA’I FAITH MUST HAVE A GUARDIAN TO PROGRESS . . . . then ONLY MASON REMEY COULD HAVE FULFILLED THAT ROLE, and Mason Remey intended me as his successor and named Donald on my prodding and he did so to pacify me and to placate my anxieties. [In all of Pepe’s quotes, his emphasis. All ellipses within the quote are Pepe’s].
When reading Pepe’s words, we must separate the wheat from the chaff. We have to accept his words that are in accordance with the Covenant, but when his words depart from the Covenant we must question them. So when he says, “if it is true that Mason was, in fact, the adopted Aghsan son of `Abdu’l-Baha, and if that fact were to be generally accepted, then I should not be able to refuse being his only possible successor,” we have to accept part of it and reject another part. Nowhere in the Covenant does it say that the Aghsan identity of the Guardian must be “generally accepted” for it to be true. So to fashion this statement into one which is in accord with the Covenant, we would have to edit it to read, “if it is true that Mason was, in fact, the adopted Aghsan son of `Abdu’l-Baha, then I should not be able to refuse being his only possible successor.”
It is clear from this quote that Dr. Jensen’s teachings about the requirement of the Guardian being an Aghsan were resonating with Pepe. For nearly thirty years, he had been indoctrinated into the idea that Mason’s legitimacy as Guardian stood only on the fact that Shoghi Effendi had appointed him as President of the IBC/UHJ. At the time of this letter, however, we can see a light flickering on in Pepe’s mind, although we can still discern some internal struggle over the issue.
This all must have been quite unsettling for Pepe. He had assumed that he had dodged a bullet, so to speak, by convincing Mason to appoint Donald Harvey. But by this time, he had started realizing that he was the only one who had received an appointment who was also an Aghsan, and therefore was the only legitimate successor to Mason. With the realization that there was no other legitimate successor to Mason’s Guardianship, the awareness of his duty to appoint a successor in his lifetime would have increasingly pressed upon his conscience.
As Pepe himself explained, if it is true that Mason’s Guardianship rests on the fact that he was an appointed Aghsan, then an explicit appointment of a non-Aghsan by Mason was irrelevant, especially in light of Mason’s intent to appoint Pepe, an adopted Aghsan.
Pepe emphasizes that he knew that it was Mason’s intent to appoint him as the successor. It may seem as if he is questioning the importance of Mason’s intent when he says, “whether Mason intended that or not makes no difference,” but the whole sentence reads, “If, instead, Mason’s Guardianship stands merely on his appointment by Shoghi Effendi as President of the IBC, then Donald Harvey is his rightful successor – whether Mason intended that or not makes no difference . . .” It is a conditional statement. In other words, Mason’s intent makes no difference only if Mason’s Guardianship stands merely on his appointment by Shoghi Effendi as President of the IBC. We know according to Dr. Jensen’s explanations of the Covenant that this was not the case, that Mason’s Guardianship rested on the fact that he was appointed President of the IBC/UHJ plus the fact that he was, prior to the appointment, `Abdu’l-Baha’s adopted son. But Pepe was struggling with the idea. The fact is that we know from Pepe’s own testimony that Mason never intended Donald Harvey to succeed him.
To the extent that Pepe accepted the fact that he was an Aghsan, he also knew that his successor had to be an Aghsan. This would have to be done through some form of adoption, considering that Pepe had no biological children of his own.
We know that Dr. Jensen educated Pepe about the Palestinian law under which `Abdu’l-Baha’s adoption of Mason was legitimate.
In June 1989, Doc wrote to Pepe:
According to the Palestinian law of the Ottoman Empire, at the time that `Abdu’l-Baha adopted Mason, and according to the British law of Palestine, and now the Israeli law, “If he rears the child for the glory of God, the child is certainly to be regarded as his child and not only in lineage, but even where the child has parents and is being brought up by a stranger as a meritorious act, if the latter has no children and is bringing up the child to succeed him, and they address each other as father and son” (Selected Judgments of the Supreme Court of Israel III, 1958-1960, [Jerusalem: The Ministry of Justice] p.427 ) (Dr. Jensen, First Epistle to Joseph Pepe Remey, June 8, 1989, p. 1)
Because of Doc’s persistence in educating him about the Guardianship, Pepe started to become aware of the fact that Mason was an Aghsan, as well as the general requirement in the Covenant that the successor be an Aghsan. Further, Pepe had been made aware by Dr. Jensen and his followers that the Palestinian law, by which `Abdu’l-Baha’s adoption of Mason was legal, states that the adopter must have referred to the adoptee as “son”. Further still, Pepe was well aware of the note from Shoghi Effendi to Mason inscribed on the packet of Hair and Blood, in which Shoghi refers to Mason as `Abdu’l-Baha’s “dear son” in quotation marks, as well as the letter in “Star of the West” where `Abdu’l-Baha addresses Mason as, “O my dear son.”
The fact that Pepe referred to me as his “boy” and “son” is significant in light of the fact that Doc had made him aware of the Palestinian law.
On December 6, 1990, Pepe wrote to me:
Now, again, dear “boy”….can you believe that God would expect His divinely inspired minister to resort to telling LIES….
On December 10, 1990, he wrote to me:
Oh, my dear boy. I could tell you such stories.
On September 17, 1991, he wrote to me:
My dear “boy” – yes, you are all my “boys” my “sons”.
In writing “yes, you are all my ‘boys’ my ‘sons’,” Pepe seems to be including all male BUPC members with whom he was in correspondence as his “sons.” But these are just potential sons. I say “potential” because the other part of the adoption law, as explained to Pepe by Dr. Jensen, says that the adoptee must have received some kind of token from the adopter.
In his first Epistle to Pepe, Dr. Jensen wrote:
Also when a man leaves an inheritance, even if it is a stone or a marker, to one he calls his son or daughter, in the Israeli law this confers upon him or her succession rights. As “of all the remnants of Baha'u'llah's all-Sacred Person, the most hallowed, the most precious,” was delivered into the hands of your father Mason Remey, he then inherited the right to the kingdom of his father, `Abdu'l-Baha. All that was left to be done to be in accordance with the Sacred Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Baha and to be the succeeding guardian was to be appointed during the lifetime of Shoghi Effendi. (Dr. Jensen, First Epistle to Joseph Pepe Remey, June 8, 1989, p. 2)
It was also explained to Pepe that this idea of confirming an adoption through the passing of a meaningful symbolic token had deep legal precedence rooted in biblical times. For instance, the following passage was brought to Pepe’s attention:
“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; giving of a clod of earth or a twig in livery of seizing as evidence or the transfer of the title [to land]. . . .” (Sagebeer, The Bible in Court, p.104) [my brackets]
In describing institutive evidence, this quote emphasizes the importance of the symbolic nature of the token. The token must symbolize that which is being inherited.
To the best of my knowledge, of those who accepted Pepe’s Aghsan Guardianship, I am the only one referred to by Pepe as one of his “sons” who received from him any token whatsoever, and the only one who received strong institutive evidence directly from Pepe’s hands. In March of 1992, while visiting my sister in Europe, I took a side trip to Italy, the land of my mother’s heritage. While in Florence, I paid a visit to Pepe. At the end of my visit, he gave me a photograph of `Abdu’l-Baha that had belonged to Mason. This is an important piece of institutive evidence, for it represents the passing of `Abdu’l-Baha’s line of descent from Mason to Pepe, and then to me. He also gave me a letter written to Mason by a Mr. Hansen-West, whom Mason had introduced to the Baha’i Faith. Included with the letter from Mr. Hansen-West was a small horseshoe-shaped token that he had made for Mason.
Because of Pepe’s awareness of the Palestinian law and its relevance to the history of the Aghsan succession, we have reason to believe that he was quite aware that he was giving me institutive evidence of adoption by giving me the photograph of `Abdu’l-Baha. He also knew that had I only received the photograph, anyone could call into question its provenance. In giving me the letter with the horseshoe token in addition to the photograph, Pepe was providing me with evidence that I had in fact visited with him in person and that he had in fact given me possessions that had been bequeathed to him by Mason.
It should also be noted that I am the only one to whom he wrote the words, “Oh my dear boy” (12/10/90), which is an echo of `Abdu’l-Baha’s adoption of Charles Mason Remey, in which the former addressed the latter as “O my dear son” in a letter published in Star of the West. We know from Pepe’s September 17, 1991 letter to me that, for Pepe, the word “boy” was equivalent to “son.”
One last point with regard to my relationship with Pepe: I am the only one who can demonstrate in accordance with the requirements of the law that Pepe and I had the father-son relationship necessary to legalize the succession, and that he considered me worthy of this inheritance, in accordance with the W&T. This is evident in his kind, fatherly words for me, a few of which are as follows:
May 24, 1991:
Nothing you have written to me previously convinced me, as this last letter did, that you are a truly spiritually oriented individual; that you have a mind of your own and free to draw your own conclusions.
You possess a very excellent mind, Glenn, capable of facing up to that challenge.
February 4, 1992:
I have no children of my own and my purpose in life has always been to instill in the minds of youngsters who enter the sphere of my own life, something noble and fine that will help them through life, thus projecting myself into the future through them… just as Mason Remey has done with me. Mason succeeded in projecting himself through me and when I defend him, it is as if he himself were alive and defending himself. If, through some help from me, you achieve success in life and remember my contribution, you do me honor in the future. I know the pleasure individuals I have helped in the past have experienced because of my relationship to them, and the joy I experience is not for myself alone, but for themselves too because it is a glorious experience to know someone loves you and wants to help you and continue to love you even when you are far apart… even in death.
May 21, 1992:
I, like [doubting] Thomas, have doubted about you, Glenn, but after having SEEN and TALKED with you, my faith was restored.
August 31, 1993
Dear Glenn, Your wanting to share with me the good news that you surely deserved was appreciated. I read all you wrote with sincere interest. Perhaps I have no right to be, but feel “PROUD” of your accomplishments nonetheless.
Based on these many points, it is reasonable to conclude that I have a valid claim to being the only adopted “son” of Pepe whom he considered worthy to inherit his position of Aghsan Guardian.
But we know that there is another requirement. The son must be appointed. On March 29, 1993 Pepe wrote to me:
At one time in the past – several years ago – when I was carrying on an active correspondence with Daniel Scherr, yourself and Brent Mathieu I thought seriously that should the time come when the mainstream Baha’is might want to correct their error regarding Mason’s claim to the guardianship and ask me to succeed him, I would have had the three of you as sub-guardians – one to dedicate himself only to the WORD – one to the Administrative Order of `Abdu’l-Baha and one to the Teaching Efforts. I believe the time will come when only one guardian will not be able to handle all the chores. There may be several guardians acting in various capacities but only one spiritual Head (The Repository of Divine Guidance) to oversee all and to assure that PROTECTION promised by Baha’u’llah. I was enthralled with the three of you and should have been proud to have you as my “sons.” A pity it all fell apart. You are the only one of the three who is still in communication.
If we go all the way back to a letter he wrote in 1975, we can see clearly that Pepe is imitating Mason’s plan. He wrote to Dr. Jensen that, circa 1963,
. . . [Mason] listed three persons as his successor.....I will not tell you the sequence of the three names.....but I will tell you that my name appeared on that list along with Donald Harvey's and Joel's . . . (Joseph Pepe Remey, letter to Dr. Leland Jensen, 7/24/75, p. 1)
What we can see from these two statements is that Pepe is following in his father’s footsteps. Just as Mason appointed three successors, it is not unreasonable to surmise that in his letter to me, Pepe is deliberately following the same pattern.
In that same letter from 1975, he wrote:
In order to secure the continuation of the Guardianship, he made sure there would be several possible successors. You see, Dr. Jensen, Mason was more interested in securing the successorship than of the successor himself. (Joseph Pepe Remey letter to Dr. Leland Jensen, 7/24/75, p. 1)
It would be fair to conclude that Pepe thought that by appointing several “sub-guardians,” he would be able to secure the successorship. He persisted with this to the end. In 1994, he wrote:
A time may come when the Administrative work may be so vast, the spiritual successor will not be able to serve as “Guardian”. He may appoint one, two or more Guardians to oversee different aspects of the Administrative order. What is wrong with that? (Joseph Pepe Remey, letter to Dr. Leland Jensen, 1/18/94, p. 6)
What is “wrong with that” is that it’s not the plan of God. The Covenant, of course, calls for only one Guardian. The W&T provides for “Hands” to assist him, not “sub-guardians,” and one successor, not several. Yet the method of appointment of his one successor is not specified in the W&T.
In the March 1993 letter to me, Pepe wrote that his specific “sub-guardian” plan “fell apart.” He listed the names of the three “sons” whom he had intended to appoint as “sub-guardians” acting under him, and in the next breath implies that this plan fell apart because two of them were estranged from him. His last sentence emphasizes that only one them is still in communication, implying that he is still on good terms with that one. In the same way, Mason’s list appointing Donald, Pepe and Joel fell apart, and only one person, Mason’s adopted son Pepe, remained the legitimate appointment. So while it was true that Pepe’s plan to have several Guardians or “sub-guardians” was defunct, God’s plan to have just one Guardian and one successor, as laid out in the W&T, remained intact.
When in 1994, Pepe again mentions the general plan to appoint several Guardians, we can see that he hadn’t given up on the general plan. Perhaps Pepe considered it “a pity” that his plan “fell apart” because he still could not discriminate between the plan of Mason and the plan of God. Even though Danny and Brent had disqualified themselves, Pepe apparently had not given up hope that Mason’s plan would be resurrected. At some point, he may have tried appointing more “sub-guardians,” but that was not meant to be, because he died shortly thereafter.
We know based on our earlier examination of Pepe’s comments that an understanding of Mason’s intent was important to Pepe vis-à-vis his own Guardianship. Therefore, we can accept that Pepe’s intent also carries weight. Further, the Guardian’s intent is important because the W&T gives him the right and the duty to appoint his successor, so if he doesn’t fulfill that as clearly as we would like, we must examine his intent.
Again, the W&T does not specify how an appointment is to be made. It is up to the believers to discern the truth of the identity of the successor based on the available evidence weighed against the criteria established in the W&T, just as Dr. Jensen had done many years before. Neither the believers’ ability to see the appointment clearly, nor their willingness to accept it, is a criterion for judging the validity of the provision of the Covenant that the Guardian must have a successor. Our job is to discern to the best of our ability the clearest appointment. The lesson that should have been learned from Mason’s appointment of Pepe is that the absence of a straightforward appointment does not bring the Guardianship to an end.
Having waited 15 years for some other claimant to come forth with sufficient proofs, and with none forthcoming, it’s now reasonable to conclude that not only does the paragraph in Pepe’s March '93 letter to me reveal his intent to appoint me as “sub-guardian,” but that this constitutes a viable statement of appointment to the Guardianship.
In drawing to a close, there is one more important fact that I’d like to point out. Soon after Pepe’s passing, Jim Fluri took a trip to Florence and met with Pepe’s manservant, Renato. Jim queried Renato about the possibility of the existence of a son previously unbeknownst to any of the BUPC, and Renato replied in the negative. Jim then asked him if he could take the token of the Hair and the Blood to Dr. Jensen. (Jim had previously visited Pepe in Florence at which time Pepe showed him the Hair and the Blood, so Jim knew where it was kept.) Renato agreed to his request, and Jim took the Hair and Blood and gave it to Dr. Jensen when he returned to the States. This sacred “token” had passed from `Abdu’l-Baha, to Shoghi Effendi, to Charles Mason Remey, to Joseph Pepe Remey and was now in Dr. Jensen’s care as a sacred trust.
There are witnesses that Dr. Jensen specifically entrusted his beloved wife Wind with the packet of Hair and Blood so that she would give it to Pepe’s successor. Weeks before Dr. Jensen’s passing, when he was in the process of writing up his will, he instructed Wind that it would now fall upon her to discern who was Pepe’s successor in order to pass on the Hair and Blood. Wind then asked Dr. Jensen how she could be certain of the identity of the next Guardian. She asked this because the past history of both Mason’s and Pepe’s successions demonstrated that we would be foolish to expect that discerning the identity of the appointed son would now be a simple matter. His simple response was, “You’ll know. I have faith in you. You should have more faith in yourself.”
Obviously, like Mason’s medallion, the Hair and Blood is not the method of appointment, rather it is a sign. Wind has recognized me as the next Guardian of the Cause, and I have received from her the token of the Hair and Blood.
I am confident that anyone who seeks the identity of the Aghsan Guardian will find the answer if they approach it in the manner that Baha’u’llah promotes:
O my brother, when a true seeker determineth to take the step of search in the path leading to the knowledge of the Ancient of Days, he must, before all else, cleanse and purify his heart. . . . that no remnant of either love or hate may linger therein, lest that love blindly incline him to error, or that hate repel him away from the truth. --Baha’u’llah
In el Abha,
Glenn David Goldman