Talk:Attempted schisms in the Baháʼí Faith/Archive 3

Archived Cuñado - Talk 18:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

reverts

Can we get some second opinions? Here's the paragraph that I rewrote:

Jensen established the Second International Baha'i Council (sIBC) in 1991 and appointed Joseph Pepe Remey as its president and Guardian of the Faith, believing him to be the appropriate successor of Mason Remey. Pepe declined this appointment, and a long series of debates ensued.

And here's the paragraph that Jeffmichaud reverted to, on the basis that mine was "inaccurate and misleading":

Jensen established the Second International Baha'i Council (sIBC) with the Guardian as it's President on Jan. 9th, 1991. He had accepted Mason Remey as the Guardian, believing the office had passed to him upon the passing of Shoghi Effendi. He believed that Mason Remey's adopted son Pepe Remey was the only legimate successor that Remey had. Jensen therefore invited Pepe, as Guardian, to be the President of the council as the Will and Testament states that the Guardian is "the sacred head and distinguished member for life of that body." Pepe declined this appointment, and a long series of debates ensued.

Jeff's paragraph is inappropriate for several reasons

1. He says the council was established with the Guardian as its president. Pepe being the Guardian is a fact disputed by not only the vast majority of Baha'is and most of the followers of Remey, but it was denied openly by Pepe himself.
2. The quote from Abdu'l Baha's Will and Testament is not necessary, since that issue is explained at length on this same page.
3. Changing "appointed" to "invited" is a weasily way of changing history and is very deceptive.

Cuñado - Talk 00:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

My comments regarding the three points

1. I agree with Cunado if it is indeed true that Pepe declined. Since JeffMichaud's paragraph also says that I think it is true.
2. The Baha'i Divisions page should be clear and concise, and thus since this has been discussed thoroughly in the document, it does not need to be repeated. The BUPC page can go in more detail.
3. The word appointed should be used as that is the word that is used in all the Baha'i Writings from Shoghi Effendi

There are some points from JeffMichaud's paragraph that need to be incorporated though. Specifically about Leland Jenson's belief that "Mason Remey's adopted son Pepe Remey was the only legimate successor that Remey had".

-- Jeff3000 00:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

~I can see the confusion, but here's the thing:

1. The main issue here is that Jensen didn't "appoint" Pepe Guardian, or President. He believed he was the Guardian due to 1) Mason appointing him, and 2) that he was an Aghsan (son/"another branch"). He taught that this was the criteria in the W&T, and that no other appoinments Mason made were valid since none were Aghsan. He therefore "invited" the Guardian (whom he believed to be the only rightful person to be President according to the W&T) to take the position set aside for him in the Covenant. Conclusion: the appointment to be Guardian was made by Mason, so therefore, since only the Guardian can be President, he invited him to take his seat on the Council. Pepe declined being President.
2. It's stated that "Jensen" believed Pepe was the Guardian leaving room for the fact that others definitely disagree.
3. Pepe did in fact acknowledge he was the Guardian in some letters to believers (see article), and denied the position to those who didn't believe. He played both sides against each other which is clear when one looks at the letters he wrote to all parties.
4. The quote is relevent for it shows why Jensen made a place for the Guardian, i.e to conform with the Covenant which he believed was his Mission to re-establish after the Great Violation of the Hands in 1957. This provision of the Covenant is being violated by the sans-Guardians and the quote provides a reference from the Explicit Texts as to where this belief is supported by the Writings. I thought I was supposed to source things, right? User:Jeffmichaud

Understood. It previously stated however that Pepe was the Guardian, which is a highly disputed fact. The point about the quote still remains, the details of Guardianship and the disputes about it are mentioned above in the article. I tried re-editing it. Cuñado - Talk 19:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Timeline/diagram

Anyone fancy making one showing the different sects and how they fit together. I don't know about the rest of you, but I suspect the article would look confusing to some people:

                                               #
                                          1844 # Bab
                                               #
                                          1850 # Azal 
                                               #
                              1863 +###########+------------+
                                   # Baha                   | Azal
                                   #                        . (Azali's/Bayanis)
                              1892 # Abdul'Baha             ...
                                   #
                     1895 +########+---------------+
                     ish  # Abdul'Baha             | Mohammad Ali
                          #                        =
                     1921 # Shoghi
                          #
                     1957 # Hands of the Cause
                          #
1960 +####################+--------------+
     # Hands of the Cause                | Mason Remey
     #                                   |
     #                              1962 | [J. B. Marangella given envelope by Mason Remey]
     #                                   |
1963 # Universal House                   |
     # of Justice (in Haifa)             |                     
     #                              1964 +---------------------------------------+       
     #                                   | Mason Remey                           | Dr. Leland Jensen 
     #                                   |                                       | (Baha'is under the
     #                              1965 |[Marangella                            |  Provisions of the  
     #                                   | opens envelope,                       |  Covenant)   
     #                                   | declared Guardian]                    |
     #                                   |                                       |  
     #                              1967 | [Donald Harvey                        |
     #                                   | appointed as Guardian]                |       
     #                              1969 +-------------------+                   |       
     #                                   | J. B. Marangella  | Donald Harvey     |       
     #     1970 ----------------------   | (Orthodox Baha'i  | [Harvey refuses   |  
     #           [John Carré declares \  | Faith)            | to organize]      |  
     #            a new prophet]       \ |                   |                   |  
     #                                  \|                   |                   |    
     #        1970 +---------------------+                   |                   |       
     #             | Reginald King       |                   |                   |       
     #             | (Orthodox Baha'i    |                   |                   |       
     #             |  Faith under        |                   |                    \      
     #             |  the Regency)       |                   |                     \     
     #             |                     |                   |                      |    
     #        1977 | Council of Regents  |                   |                 1974 | [Remey dies,   
     #             | (Tarbiyat Baha'i    |                   |                      | apparently appoints
     #             |  Community)         | 1991 +------------+------+               | Pepe as Guardian]
     #              \                    |      . ???               | Jacques       |    
     #               \                   |      .                   | Soghomonian   |    
     #                \                  |      .                   | (Baha's loyal |    
     #                 \                 |      | Francis Spataro   |  to the 4th   |    
     #                  \                |      | (Remey Society)   |  Guardian)    |    
     #                   \               |      |                   |               |    
     #                    \              | 1995 | [Spataro becomes  |               |    
     #                     \             |      |  Catholic priest] |              /     
     #                      \            |      =                   |             /      
     #                       \            \                         |            |       
     #                        \            \                        |            |    
     #                         \            \                       |            |  
     #                          \            \                      |            | 
     #                           \            \                     |            |       
     #                            \            \                    |       1991 | Second International     
     #                             \            \                   |            | Baha'i Council  
     #                              \            \                  |            |       
2004 +-------------------+           \            \                 |       2001 | [Neal Chase declares        
     # Universal House   |            \            \                |            | himself 4th Guardian]
     # of Justice        | Glaysher    \            \               |            |       
     #                   | (Reform      \            \              |            |       
     #                   |  Baha'i       \            \             |            |       
     #                   |  Faith)        \            |            |            |       
     #                   |                 |           |            |            |       
     #                   |                 |           |            |            |       
     #                   |                 |           |            |            |       
     #                   |                 |           |            |            |       
     # Pop: 5-7Mil.      | Internet based  | Pop:<100? | Pop: 1K?   | Pop:<100?  | Pop:<1k?      

and thats as good as I know -- Tomhab 11:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

oh and sorry I didn't go into that much detail about the Orthodox/Remeyite side of things, but I don't really know the details that well.... someone else can fill that in :) -- Tomhab 12:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I just added the OBF and PUPC split there, but there's much more detail to add.

I just re-did the diagram, adding most of the splits listed on this document, adding # to show the "main" population, and added some "now" info at the bottom. I realize the "main" designation is possibly contentious, but given the other discussion about this page and related pages, it seems justified due to the overwhelming numbers of the Baha'is who follow the Universal House of Justice in Haifa.

Having said that, the diagram is getting a bit complicated, so I'm not sure if I've improved it much. As Mike Myers puts it: "Talk amongst yehselves." (Still, not bad for text...) --Christian Edward Gruber 23:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The population on everything other than the UHJ group is going to be unconfirmable. I've looked all over for estimates on their sizes and just found speculation. It looks like this... Marangella - around 1k; BUPC - less than 1k; Soghomonian - apparently just a handful; King - maybe a few hundred; Glaysher - all internet based so definition of membership does not equate. But there are no official self reporting statistics and no third party observers trying to count them. Cuñado - Talk 09:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I sort of put it in, because I couldn't think of a nice way to tie off the tail-ends of the timelines, and because it provides context. I could just as easily live with removing the population thing at the bottom - especially absent any real data. :( Anyways, any better ideas on how to tie it off (not really room to list current leadership of each group. More to the point, did I miss anything critical to each splinter (remembering of course that the timeline can't detail every significant event, due to space restrictions). Man, this would be so much better as a scalable vector graphic. -- Christian Edward Gruber 15:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There were several significant disputes after Abdu'l Baha's death, mostly Ruth White and a few notable people who didn't like any kind of administration and went against Shoghi Effendi. If Glaysher (not representing a new administration) is on the list then they should be added. I would just assume to take off Glaysher and leave it to leadership disputes.

I agree that the population is relevant, because otherwise it appears that the divisions are something significant, like comparing Greek Orthodox to Roman Catholic. There should be something to tell viewers that they do not represent a community life outside of a few locations, or something like that. Cuñado - Talk 01:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

~Not sure where this chart will eventually wind up, but if it's to reflect the history of the BUPC accurately I've made some minor changes. Jensen began writing to Pepe in '74 trying to get him to come forward as Remey's successor. Jensen formed the sIBC in 91' which assumed leadership of the BUPC; Jensen always maintaining the position that he was from then on a member of the community, and the sIBC was the highest authority. Chase is believed the Guardian, but a member of the Council with a vote of one, hence, the sIBC is still seen as the "leader" of the group. User:Jeffmichaud 19:40 24 December 2005

Where I hope it's going, is that it diagrams the chronological order and links of the various changes in view and power among the groups claiming to be "the" Baha'i Faith, etc. I think it's almost at a place where it's readable, and could be potentially used as a diagram on the divisions page. thoughts?

-- Christian Edward Gruber 17:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

== Role of the Hands==

One does not simply remove material, that meets wikipedia guidelines on content and sourcing, from an article without discussion on the talk page at the very least. Removing the material, while suggesting that it be moved, but not moving it yourself is not showing good faith indeed. You might take an hour and read the Five Pillars — One, Two and Four seem particularly appropriate.MARussellPESE 03:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

~I didn't "remove the material", I created a link to it, so I didn't see a discussion was necessary. That one expansion of the section added several feet of length to the existing page, and in my opinion is extraneous to the flow of the article, especially when the content of the expansion is a document which can be easily linked to. The relevant point of the affidavit was summarized and quoted previously. A link to the entire document should suffice.

My understanding of this page was the unofficial "concensus" was it is a summary page, and as such should not be dominated by a particular section. If that's not the case then I will revert the BUPC section back to the version I created which Cunado saw fit to revert without discussion, which included extensive "content and sourcing", but was deemed, without discussion, "too lengthy". We don't want double-standards on a neutral site, do we? User:Jeffmichaud 01:46 14-Dec.-05

As a consensus page, you do not have the right to unilaterally remove material, especially material that addresses the other side of your POV. I'm re-inserting it. If you feel you can edit it down, which is what you're arguing should be done, by all means do so.

What's between you and Cuñado is between the two of you. If you have a problem with his edits, then bring them here.

MARussellPESE 18:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

~I actually was curious why there has never been mention of where the Hands assert this authority that they later exercised. This section is clearly the place for it, and as I'm not one who feels facts should be censored they should be referenced here. I honestly feel the expansion bogs down the flow of the article and can be summarized and referenced. I hope my recent changes haven't left anything out and reflects the intended sentiments. User:Jeffmichaud 14:58 14-Dec-05

BUPC History

While viewed as a splinter group by the Baha'i World Faith, the history of the BUPC's is as viable as the history of the Bab and the subsequent split between Mirza Yaya and Baha'u'llah. The growth of this group should be told by those who understand what their beliefs are even if they disagree with anothers perception. I agree that whatever is written should be accompanied by sources that would support whatever "evidence" is provided.

While no one (sane) would argue against members of that group or those knowledgeable about it from writing/editing their views, someone actually has to bother. At present, what exists on this page is the best NPOV that the current group of editors can cobble together. If it doesn't look good, edit it, though be sure to provide sources for additional information, as Wikipedia is not for "original work".

As for it being a splinter group (as viewed by the larger Baha'i population), it is arguably a splinter group. Viable or not, legitimate or not, it is group that split from the Orthodox Baha'i Faith over succession and (later) doctrinal differences. The founding BUPC leadership was already not part of the main group of Baha'is (if I understand things correctly) at the time of that group's creation. Whether or not it's viable or legitimate, it did split away from the larger group.

By contrast, while the Baha'is can certainly be seen to have "split" from the Babis, 90+% of the Babis followed Baha'u'llah, so the comparison is a bit disingenuous. Again, this is not to quibble with a better phrasing of anything, if a new contributor can provide such. -- Christian Edward Gruber 22:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You may be correct in stating that the BUPC's are a splinter group from the main orthodox Baha'i Faith. The establisher of the BUPC's had in fact been a third generation Baha'i prior to the events in 1957 and a Knight of Baha'u'llah under the guardianship of Shoghi Effendi. It is also correct that the departure from the orthodox Baha'i Faith was over the succession of leadership, however, both groups have clear documentation (the Will & Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha) that clearly defines the successorship and how it was to operate. It is not an easy task to relate this particular issue. I do not intend to belittle anyone who may believe differently from my own point of view (I am a BUPC and a member of the second International Baha'i Council), however, anyone who seriously investigates the Will & Testament may find that the events of 1957 onward were not in accordance with any authorized Baha'i text.R J Konczyk 23:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

RJKshadow/RJ Konczyk

Reiterating, I was not commenting one way or the other on the legitimacy of the claims of either OBC or BUPC, nor would I on this site. This is not a forum for that sort of comment. Regards, Christian Edward Gruber 23:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Archive time again, I think

Anyone care to do so? The page is getting huge again. -- Christian Edward Gruber 23:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

done -- Jeff3000 19:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Citation Wars, BUPC original material, and Wikipedia Policy

As a point of note on this whole "Quoting Pepe" and other BUPC-specific stuff, a lot of this is what I would consider "original work". Jeff, for example, has "First hand knowledge" of Jensen's beliefs. That's fine, but he should write a web-page elsewhere, and cite the page here, rather than use Wikipedia as the place for the original text. This process is in line with the Wikipedia policy on no original works. Wikipedia is an encyclopoedia, not a publisher. Creating external content and then linking back would provide for more concise articles and cleaner overall presentation. More to the point, the source then provides a context to better interpret the accuracy of the cited material. For instance, if we have original text from Baha'u'llah cited, referenced to the world centre e-archives, and cross-referenced to brittannica or some other non-baha'i work, it is liklier to actually be something he wrote, than if I just wrote it here on Wikipedia and claimed he wrote it.

The whole caffuffle can be likely averted if people read the wikipedia guideline describing how wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and the policy on no original research. -- Christian Edward Gruber 00:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Bluntly, this has been a standing concern of mine for most of Jeffmichaud's article contributions and edits. I've even posted the "Five Pillars" to his talk page — but he took them down recently. Not interested perhaps?

The question is what to do? Remove it and get accused of censorship? (Been there and done that.) Leave it and let wikipedia become the very soapbox it's not supposed to be? Does one appeal to somebody? Near as I can tell admins will step in when a wikipedian gets nasty, but not when editors add un-sourced, un-verifiable material. MARussellPESE 19:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

~FTR, the so-called "Citation Wars" ended almost a month ago. Furthermore, I was the one who finally removed the quotes of Pepe Remey's on Nov. 30th, due to the opposition of expanding beyond a summary on this page. The BUPC summary was completley reworked at that time to it's current version. Why is this even being discussed almost a month later? What do you want to "remove", MARussell? It's been widdled down to 4 paragraph's. There is a longer quote in the "Passing of Shoghi Effendi" section of the page than the BUPC has for their entire summary. What purpose is this discussion serving? I believe the sentiments are unfounded, and redundant, given that it's of a subject long since resolved.

The BUPC's BELIEFS are not my "original thoughts", nor my "original research". These BELIEFS can be verified and sourced which I have been doing to the best of my knowledge. If there's something that hasn't, then please point it out specifically so I can tend to it. Broad and offhanded jabs like the ones above are out of order, and are assuming bad faith on my part. Obviously the BUPC's beliefs stem from interpretations of the Writings that are at odds with the mainstream Baha'is interpretations, which is why the division occured in the first place.

The superiority complex of the mainstream Baha'is on Wikipedia is staggering. There are hundreds of thousand of giga-bytes on this site dedicated to advancing their versions and interpretations of the Writings under the guise of authoratative. Talk about soap-boxing. Noone's advocating removing anything from their one-sided pages, but rather that all the various demominations be given their say. How convenient it must be to have the high ground of being able to advance your particular interpretations of the Writings with the added convenience of being able to point to Britanica to coroborate them. They are interpretations; noone can claim absolute authority here, but yet you do. Then you have the added bonus of being in the position to marginalize any dissenting opinions by isolating them into obscure sub-categories like this one. Then, after completely predjudicing the reader with a half dozen precursers as to why what they are about to read from these divisions is nonsense, we have our 3-4 paragraph maximum to summarize our entire belief system. The BUPC in particular has been "allowed" one sentence to sum up their differences in belief, if you look closely, and any attempts to expand on the one sentence has been squashed. With all the dozens of stubs still unfinished on the Baha'i pages, I'm astounded that so much energy would go into this Divisions page. User:Jeffmichaud 20:35 26 December 2005

And likewise I can't believe you're making a big deal out of it. Do you realize the divisions article has a ton of other groups, and a short essay on the BUPC would be incredibly unweighted. The summary paragraphs are not meant to be an exhaustive study, and you might notice that all the pages you started to expand on the beliefs have been almost completely left alone (except for a few minor points). And without a proper introduction and proper context, some of the wild claims on this page can blindside people who aren't familiar with the subject. It is only without that context and introduction that anyone stands a chance of believing in some guy who basically made up his own religion, had enormously failed prophesies, molested a little girl, and appointed a Guardian who wanted nothing to do with it. Cuñado - Talk 08:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sen McGlinn

I tried to find a reference for Sen being expelled. I came up with three web blogs and nothing else. Is Wikipedia becoming a web blog? I don't doubt that someone got expelled, or that people do, but why is it posted with no reference? If someone's really interested in who/when/why people are expelled, then they should find a list from the World Centre and post it, anything else will be a patchwork of terrible sources. I would delete it, but then I'd get accused to deleting potentially negative information. Cuñado - Talk 04:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I cited the offending sentence, named the book, and corrected the statement that the Bahai Faith does not have theologians, with a reference to Jack McLean's article on the previous policy. The web linke for that is

http://www.bahai-studies.ca/archives/jbs/jbs.5-1.mclean.html

if someone knows how to put the link in without citing the whole URL in the text that would be preferable to giving the full title of the article as I have. A link to One Common Faith would also be useful. Sen Mcglinn 00:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I deleted a lot of what you just put up. Wikipedia is not a place to post opinions, only facts. Right now there is no reference to Sen Mcglinn being expelled, and if there is a discussion about the morality of him being expelled, then it can be linked, but the discussion should not take place on wikipedia. The relevancy of this whole issue is another case for taking out the lengthy quote that was added. Cuñado - Talk

Your deletion is fine: my changes were in response to the observation that there were no facts (I cited a source) and the incomplete statement that the Bahai faith has no theologians. What you have deleted as opinions was also facts: sourced references to the development of discussion in the Bahai community on whether the term "Bahai theology" is appropriate. One might argue that it was too detailed, when all that was required was to delete the claim that the Bahai Faith has no theologians, but it is not correct to label it as opinion. Sen Mcglinn 17:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Your sources were debating the legality of the expulsion and pretty unrelevant. There are currently no sources about when/why/how Sen Mcglinn was expelled. And keep in mind, secondary sources are weak at best. If the source is a web blog it will be deleted. The best would be a credible website or a published work by a credible author. A record from the Baha'i World Center about the expulsion would work as well.

The relevancy of this is about the same as saying "so-and-so got kicked out of the LDS church for disagreements." Expulsions are not uncommon in any religion. Cuñado - Talk 17:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Besides, in the scheme of the other topics involved in this article - Sen McGlinn's expulsion is quite minor. A mention would be good, but not much more is needed. Ideally, a page about the details of each expulsion might be possible I guess. -- Tomhab 18:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's a minor issue in the grand scheme. I would prefer that it not be mentioned, but if it is mentioned, it should be accurate. I cannot help with *reasons* for my expulsion, beyond citing what the UHJ wrote on 14 Nov. 2005, but I can confirm it is a fact. I previously posted the UHJ's letter and the book reference, and a journal article reference, to substantiate that fact and give its background, but these were removed as "opinion," so I am rather at a lost to know what would be acceptable sources for wikipedia: tablets engraved in stone perhaps? I did *not* post sources arguing the legality of the expulsion, just the UHJ's own letter, which I suppose is an argument that the expulsion is legal or moral or necessary. Sen Mcglinn 15:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm quoting your edit that was deleted:

Sen McGlinn was disenrolled at the end of 2005, for remarks in a the introduction to his book "Church and State" in which he said he was a Bahá'í theologian. The offending sentence reads: "I should declare at the outset that my stance is not that of a historian or academic scholar of the science of religion, but of a Bahai theologian, writing from and for a religious community, and I speak as if the reader shares the concerns of that community. As a Bahai theologian, I seek to criticize, clarify, purify and strengthen the ideas of the Bahai community, to enable Bahais to understand their relatively new faith and to see what it can offer the world." Although the Universal House of Justice had previously approved the use of the term "Bahai theology" and numerous Bahá'í writers have employed it (see In "Prolegomena to a Bahá'í Theology" by J. A. McLean, Journal of Bahai Studies 6:1), in the document "One Common Faith," approved by the UHJ and published in 2005, 'theology' is used three times as a pejorative term, suggesting that there has been a change of policy.

In terms of details of the expulsion, I don't see any references, no letters, no published articles or books, no tablets engraved in stone. Cuñado - Talk 16:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Read it again then. Those are the references to all 3 relevant documents. The first is: Sen McGlinn (author), Church and State (title); the second is JA McLean (author), Prolegmona to a Baha'i Theology (title of paper) in Journal of Bahai Studies (title of journal) 6:1 (volume and number). The third is Universal House of Justice (commissioning institution), One Common Faith (title). The last is an internet publication. Is that clear enough now ?? 83.85.7.169 23:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

BUPC

In the complete absence of any estimates for the size of the BUPC, this reference will do. So far there are only 2 references which give any indication of the size. If you don't like it you can add references of higher quality. Cuñado - Talk 20:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually this source is a personal website and a secondary source so it isn't reliable. The other source is reasonable. The fact that this group isn't covered in even a few places at all is indicative of its scope. Perhaps this subject can rest? MARussellPESE 20:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Cuñado - Talk 20:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

BUPC succession dispute

Please see this talk for discussion of this edit. MARussellPESE 22:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Universal House of Justice

The paper called "Mason Remey and Those Who Followed Him" has been repeatedly deleted by Jeffmichaud. It was written by the Universal House of Justice, and the paper itself quotes several sources at the bottom. It's used in the appropriate and relevant place in-line in the article, and again linked under External links. There is no reason why it should be deleted. Cuñado - Talk 08:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not a "published" paper from anything "published", so to write that the "UHJ published this paper" is patently not true. The link clearly shows at the top of the page: "Classified in collections UHJ_unpublished and Biography". The link specifically says "UNPUBLISHED". It doesn't belong in an article. Furthermore, it's dually noted in the "External links". User:Jeffmichaud Feb. 7,2006

It's one of the many letters directed to NSA's around the world that was not published directly for the public. It's from a reputable source, documented on a reputable website, and it's part of the Ocean reference library. If you really think you have a case then get an arbitrator. Cuñado - Talk 16:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems like either both URLs belong embedded in the text or in "External refrences". Neither are "published" but are legit self-references to the article as Jeffmichaud points out for the Remey declaration. Jeffmichaud insists that Remey's declaration be embedded and Cuñado likewise the UHJ reference. Both are editing the other's reference out. I suggest both references be embedded and listed as external refrences and be done with it. MARussellPESE 16:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't recall that I removed the embedded link about Remey's proclamation. Jeffmichaud was reverting the source of the document. I was using an Orthodox Baha'i website and he was using a website whose author was taught the Faith by Leland Jensen.

Anyway, yes I agree they should both be embedded. Cuñado - Talk 21:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

~Thank you MARussell. Cunado's recollection faculty is failing, but no worry. I was the one who originally provided the link to the OBF proclamation. It wasn't my favorite because it didn't go straight to the proclamation itself, but to a menu that contained it; you couldn't get straight to it. When I found Brett Mathieus's (who was declared a C.B. and enemy of the BUPC in '91 and now follows Shogomonian, BTW) I went around switching to his because it links straight to it. Now I see the OBF link has been modified to a direct link. Whichever. Thanks. User:Jeffmichaud Feb. 7, 2006

Revert expansion of "Remey Society", etc.

An anon just made a ton of changes to the various followers of Remey groups. The changes seem to be unorganized, and are basically lacking in sources. I vote for reverting back to this version, and if not reverting, shortening them back to summaries and keeping any valuable contributions that were made. If there is enough information then someone should make separate pages for the other groups, but not go into long detail here. There are also tons of formatting issues with the edits. Any suggestions? Cuñado - Talk 08:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the links that were in that rewrite of the page are mostly found in the external links already. Many things were repetitious, POV, and extraneous, well beyond a summary. Wasn't sure how to fix, or where to begin. Cunado has the right idea, here.

Contributor may not be aware that a Loyal to Fourth Guardian page would be a more appropriate place for that sort of info, and a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. User:Jeffmichaud Feb. 11, 2006

I did remove some things that appeared to be repetitive, and two sentences that were addmittedly speculative from "Remey society" section (see history for previous version). They were basically repeating Remey history already noted earlier in article. Objections? User:Jeffmichaud Feb. 11, 2006

Intro: Successful / Unsuccessful?

Does anyone have an objection to removing the POV from this statement currently found in the intro:

Unsuccessful claimants have been expelled as Covenant-breakers, though such claimants sometimes define the successful claimant in the same way...

I know, the mainstream Baha'is equate their numbers to them being "successful", but is that statement actually NPOV? Don't mean to start a whole thing, but it is in the intro and starts the reader off on a slanted journey, in my POV. Could it be changed to something like:

Claimants challenging the widely accepted succession have been expelled as covenant-breakers, though such claimants likewise regard members of the mainstream Baha'i faith in the same way...

It occurs to me that this current version may be the result of a previous concensus. Nonetheless, it's wording is heavy handed and deserves reconsideration, yes? Jeff March 7, 2006

Sounds good to me, go ahead. Only change is having tha diacretics on the word Bahá'í. -- Jeff3000 12:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The changes sound fine. Although I try not to use "mainstream Baha'i Faith" whenever possible. Cuñado - Talk 17:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If the purpose of advancing a claim to leadership is to have the community follow you, then given the general failure of each of these (Muhammad-Ali, Kheiralla, White, Remey, etc.) to attract more than a few associates, that several of these are now defunct, and that the Remeyite groups haven't seemed to pass the death of one leader without schism, then I don't think that identifying these as "unsuccessful" is POV. However, the point's already made in the first paragraph — which is widely verifiable. As it reads, it's awkward. This seems more succinct and addresses Jeff3000 and Cuñado.

Claimants challenging the widely accepted succession have been expelled as Covenant-Breakers, though such claimants likewise regard the others in the same way...

MARussellPESE 19:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I challenge the idea that Sohrab only attracted a few followers. From the little I've read so far, they, at one time, were actually quite an enormous organization. I have only started doing the research necessary and not really sure how much I'm going to do on it, unless some others pipe in and fill it out, at some point. One of the founders, was Liet. Gov of New York at one point I believe. That's interesting. I don't yet see a seperate page for him though. Wjhonson 18:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's going to pipe up and do an extensive study on him. If you want to then I think it would really improve the page to be honest. Those debates were serious in those days and mostly ignored now because they became defunct. Shoghi Effendi in God Passes By addresses several of the issues brought up by those American groups, which are not issues any more. Cuñado - Talk 18:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well Shoghi wouldn't be an unbiased pov on what this group did or didn't do, or whether it does or doesn't survive. The auto-bio by Julie doesn't really address that issue. I've added a bunch of biographical background material to the page for Lewis Stuyvesant Chanler. Got sidetracked updating all the links for the Astors etc since he was a descendent of John Jacob Astor, the richest man in the world at one time. Also Lewis had a famous brother, perhaps even more famous than himself and I had to go work on that page a bit. Interesting stuff. Anyway, still haven't gotten around to trying to tackle the page for Julie which, if anything, will be much bigger and more controversial I'm sure. Julie was rather outspoken, she apparently appeared a few times before Congress. So it looks like she might be an interesting character if I can find the time. Wjhonson 21:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, Shoghi Effendi is considered POV in that context, but then their own statements are therefore POV as well. -- Jeff3000 21:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Foreshadowing of break in Guardians section

Does anyone besides me feel this new section is extraneous and bogging down this article which already has an "article size" tag at the top of it. It's rather obscure and redundant, in my POV. And, if you all can't sum up your point with the space already dedicated to the topic, then, I mean, come on! There are entire sections of the Will (which could be linked to, btw) along with copious amounts of information and assertions before anyone gets to actually read a word about any of the modern day groups. I had to wage a war to expand the BUPC section from one paragraph to three. Yet there seems to be no end to the verfiable POV being adding above the actual "divsion" groups that this article is supposed to be about. For some reason, the contributors here will allow no expansion to the actual groups being discussed, yet feel free to expand away at will on there own themes. It's a double standard, in my POV.

I've seen Cunado's arguement that a reader needs all this information to understand how the groups came about. What started off as an intro into the subject has evolved into the dominant theme of the page, i.e.: "the Baha'i divisions are idiots for all these reasons; and now that you've waded through our POV, here's what they believe". I'd actually move to create a "Refuting Baha'i divisions" since this article is already beyond the acceptable article size, and given that only one third of this artilce is actually about the Baha'i divisions. Is that an outrageous request, or can we consider it, since there seems to be no end to the expansion of the mainstream Baha'is POV and no tolerance for anyone else's. I'm not taking issue with the content of this new section, but where does this end? How about a whole new article: "Refuting Baha'i divisions"? Or maybe "Baha'is divsions" could be all about the division groups supposed flaws, and an article called "Baha'i division groups" that is actually a summary about the groups themselves (which is what I thought this was supposed to be)? Jeff 2:25 March 17 2006

What you want is to hide the 90% of truth that is necessary to understand the divisions. I've removed this information from every other page, including a long discussion on Mason Remey's page, because it is better to consolidate and link. Removing or shortening that info is an attempt to promote your BUPC interest. Right now it's factual and relevant.

The section on foreshadowing is from several published books, including the Synopsis and Codifications of the Kitab-i-Aqdas by the House of Justice. I consider that section to be better referenced than any of your BUPC articles. It's not just Taherzadeh's POV, it's the official Baha'i POV, as published by the House, and it's stated in a factual manner. Cuñado - Talk 17:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe the section is quite appropriate. Also I don't think dividing up this page is appropriate; given the already tricky subject it's apsects must be fully discussed in the same article. -- Jeff3000 17:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Good lord, Cunado. Settle down. I said I wasn't taking issue with it's content. Did you actually read anything I wrote? I figured you have your reasons for creating it. I never saw it on any other page before; this is the first time I've seen it. Why do you assume I want to hide anything. This article lost its even-handedness long ago, in my POV. We're supposed to sum up our positions in one section, yet you can't pull it off in eight? It's not enough that you dominate every other category and allow no room for disputes or criticisms, but on this page as well it's dominated and swayed by your POV. Once again, I'm not taking issue with the content. But, this page could explode if your arguement is that whatever's verifiable can come forward. I would argue that it's you that wants to hide the criticisms and schisms and bury them; for all you've done is expand on suppressing them and block all attempts to counter them. What about what's fair and neutral? What about the article size? Why does Cunado's opinion that the "reader needs this information" have to shut down considering the article size guidelines? Why would anyone be afraid to let the groups stand alone without being suppressed by your POV? I'd ask, what threat is it to you? Jeff 11:17 March 17 2006

The article size is a recommendation (due to Netscape 3.0), and not Wikipedia policy. -- Jeff3000 18:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

On the sub-section in question, the selection may appear in Taherzadeh, but is in fact from a letter from the Universal House of Justice. This is an authoritative source for the discussion presented. The sub-section may do well with some clarifying editing.

Regarding the size and content of the various sections, the NPOV policies on Undue weight apply here. The various Remeyite groups taken collectively are probably smaller than the Bahá'í community of New York City alone. I believe a reader would be hard-pressed to find reference on-line to significant adherents of any of these groups beyond the individual leaders. I'd be willing to wager that published sources are nil, The Daily Missoulan notwithstanding.

There are six sections that discuss the disintigration of the various Remeyite groups — as many as it takes to discuss the aftermath of Shoghi Effendi's death and election of the Universal House of Justice. When one compares the few hundred members, maybe, of each of these groups to the few million Bahá'ís, these groups really, honestly, do fall into the "extremely small minority" that the policy states doesn't deserve equal presentation.

Actually there's very good reason to go on at some length to discuss the background of these divisions going back to Mirzá Muhammad-Alí. It illustrates how none of these have been successful and an examination of the foundational documents illustrates as to why. The foundational documents of the Covenant are plain, clear and direct. Neither Cuñado, nor Jeff3000, nor I are trying to "bury" these groups. History has. And extreme minority views on this page do not warrant equal time on Wikipedia per its policies — not ours. MARussellPESE 20:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Proclamation

I did spend quite some effort removing the long quotes and summarizing with in-text quotes, linked to the full text. Out of the three quotes from Remey's proclamation, I think the first two could easily be linked in-text with equal effect. Since Jeffmichaud thinks I'm being heavy handed, I'll just leave it as a comment.

Equally, I think the letter to Remey from the Hands could likewise be summarized and linked. I should mention that Remey's proclamation is not published in any books that I know of. It might look more credible from a published source, instead of on some individually run website. Cuñado - Talk 00:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

First, I felt the edits you've made to the page recently are marked improvements and really make those sections that refer to the Will flow easier. I actually thought about doing the same for the cablegram from the Hands to Remey myself. It occured to me that summarizing what Remey had to say in his proclamation took away from the potency of the statements, and that if I did that to the cablegram it would probably have the same affect. That's why I thought it fair and balanced to leave the cablegram as is, and quote right from the proclamation itself; for his words are more powerful than if they were surmised, and vice-versa. Jeff 10:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This assertion of Remey's that the Hands have no authority of their own is nonsense. The Will and Testament is clear, and already stated in the article, that they, in their capacity as Hands, have the authority to ratify the Guardian's choice of successor, and, further, to identify and cast out convenant breakers. It's quite conceivable for the Hands to say "no" to Guardian's choice, and there's nothing that would allow a Guardian to compel compliance. These responsibilities and authority derive from the Will and Testament, not the Guardian's orders. If you want this to stay, that'll get pointed out.

But, you have the timing of these statements wrong. The "Proclamation" was not a "counter" to the Custodian's letter — it preceded it, being written on 08-Apr-60. The Custodian's letter of 30-Apr-60 was their response to Remey. I'm fixing this.

Funny you should pick these particular paragraphs because, upon my reading his "Proclamation" myself, this is the exact spot I realized, once-and-for-all, that he had indeed lost it completely. These remarks of Remey's clearly show that, at the time, he didn't understand the provisions of the Will and Testament. The whole tone is unlike anything the Guardian, much less the Master, had ever written. How many times did either use the phrase "I command"? And who ever, ever, referred to themselves as having "status for life as commander in chief of Bahá’í affairs of the world" or "assume ... all of the responsibilities, the perquisites and emoluments that go with this position"?

"Commander in chief of the Bahá’í affairs of the world"? "Perquisites and emoluments"? Ye gods! What happened to "Your true brother, Shoghi"? The contrast between the Custodian's letters and his is striking. Thanks for the addition. You made the Custodians' case. MARussellPESE 20:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Denis MacEoin

A few facts to present here:

• He was, according to J.R.I. Cole, a Bahá'í from 1965-1980.
• There are only two books to his name on Babí/Bahá'í studies that are available on the web, and only one on Islamic studies of which he was co-editor:

1. Islam in the Modern World
2. Rituals in Babism and Baha'ism
3. The Sources for Early Babi Doctrine and History: A Survey

I am having a very hard time finding more than a few references to his published articles on Babí/Bahá'í studies.

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]

• He refers to himself as an Islamic scholar, not a Babí/Bahá'í scholar. (See his Newcastle upon Tyne writeup, and Royal Literary Fund writeup.)

• He has twenty-three novels to his credit.
• He is not an historian. He's a Persian literature scholar. (See the above writeups.)
• He is no longer working in the field. In fact he hasnt' worked in the field for ten years. His last academic post was Honorary Fellow, School of Arabic & Islamic Studies, University of Durham. He ran afoul of his Saudi Sponsors while at Durham (See his RLF writeup.)
• He's currently on the staff of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne in the The School of

English Literature, Language & Linguistics, where he is a Royal Literary Fund Fellow.

All of this is not intended to impeach MacEoin's work, which was extensive. (See this for an example of what he has done.) However, this is intended to put away nonsense like "he published numerous books and articles", is the greatest living Bahá'í scholar, and other such hyperbole. Every so often someone comes in and paints this picture of him and it needs to be set in context. MARussellPESE 19:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This might help clear this up, I created Denis MacEoin, please feel free to add to it and link when referring to him. You'll see from the external biographies that his identity and connection with the Baha'i Faith are minimal, and like MARussellPESE said, he calls himself a linguist, and professor of Islamic studies (not a Baha'i expert). I don't think his contributions are especially noteworthy, except when his work is published in a noteworthy Encyclopedia or other book. Cuñado - Talk 22:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

BUPC section reverts

Not that I'm looking to make a ferderal case about it, by why are the mainstream Baha'is reverting "claiming that it was the true Universal House of Justice of Baha'u'llah, as his had the Guardian as it's president"? I don't want to assume bad faith in that it's somehow something that they want to hide or not be seen by others; but as it's a verifiable (with source link provided) statement, and the most concise statement to explain the very reason the sIBC was created by Doc in the first place, I can't understand why this was excised twice now. It's not an irrelevent statement; we feel it's a core belief and concisely explains what sets us apart. I could understand if MARussell felt adding the quote from the Will was a bit much, but after I scaled it down to one sentence I'd like to ask: what's the problem, for it can't be that one sentence is too lengthy of an addition to a summary. And, why is it not being discussed? The similiar statements found on the BUPC page were also just removed from it's article. It matters little if any one of you disagree that it's true (as I'm sure you already know) for it's a verifiable belief clearly stated in "Over the Wall". I'm finding this a bit insensitive of these editors, and feel that at the very least an explanation is in order. Jeff 05:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Few things, your stated source is by J.T. Lamb, and I'm guessing that might be Jensen, but it's a dubious online site with absolutely no information about publishing or authorship. It's definitely not verifiable and to me its credibility equates to Dave's site which you hate.

The phrase "Universal House of Justice" is a loaded word. You're added it in because of the the recent court case with Chase over the domain name <uhj.net>. I see that as a modern theology, and if I recall correctly Jensen stated that HE was the House of Justice. This is also affirmed by the fact that he was trying to run the sIBC through several stages culminating in it becoming the House of Justice. However in your addition, you mention that:

Jensen established the Second International Bahá'í Council (sIBC) in 1991,claiming that it was the true Universal House of Justice of Baha'u'llah, as his had the Guardian as it's president.

Another point was that at no time was the sIBC under Jensen with a Guardian. Pepe never accepted the position. Cuñado - Talk 05:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. It was hard to understand these actions, but I see your concerns. Actually, Over the Wall is a book that was published by the Baha'i Publishers Under the Provisions of the Covenant in 1996, and then copyrighted in 2004 by our Page 10 Publishers (look at the bottom of the intro). The site is an extention of the bupc.org site. We made the book, like all our publications, free to download and I believe is a public domain. It's hardly a dubious source, as it's a book published by our publishing trust, not a personal website. Moreover, the statement is actually confirmed in several of our publications. If one would look into the matter, they'd see that:

1. Jensen believed he was the embryonic UHJ, which was born into the world as the child of the sIBC, to use an analogy of sorts. Once he established the sIBC, he stepped back into the community and became a believer and gave authority over to the council. The IBC was the first stage, and when it reached maturity it would be the UHJ. This was modelled identical to Shoghi's four stage plan.
2. The court documents that you've become so familiar with recently show that, whether Pepe accepted it or not, he was for the duration of his life listed as the sIBC's president and Guardian. Doc explained that it was no matter that he was a "do nothing" guardian. His acceptance of the role was never considered by the BUPC a requisite. Furthermore, the documents from both sides agree on this, that both IBC groups has as it's president the Guardian - this in spite of the fact that the other IBC doesn't even know who he is. After Pepe's death in '94, there was no Guardian to point to, and yet the chair of the president of the Council was still reserved for the Guardian, with the VP acting in his stead. This is all easily verifiable in the court documents if it becomes necessary to pinpoint there exact location in the briefs and the verifiability remains an issue of concern for you.
3. The start page of uhj.net clearly states our belief that it's "The Official site of the Universal House of Justice", and big, bold, and centered states that:"The descendent of King David must be the President-executive branch-of Baha'u'llah's Universal House of Justice, to recognize it from fakes, frauds and imitations." See that? That's the home page for what we refer to "sIBC/UHJ". When you go to uhj.net look at the top of your browser; it says "Universal House of Justice", doesnt' it? My Mozilla browser does anyway. We see them as one in the same, interchangeable, and what I wrote is verifiable is quite a number of places, all in various ways. Your understanding of these things was clearly lacking, and now that the veil of these misconceptions about us has been lifted I'll thank you to leave it be. Jeff 06:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

hmmm, nice try, but if you insist on putting that statement in it needs to come with an enormous disclaimer to explain things. Like you said, Jensen never had a council with a Guardian, he had an empty seat. Likewise, you just confirmed that he talked about the sIBC becoming the House of Justice in the future.

I'll repeat my previous statement that the labeling of the sIBC as the Universal House of Justice is a distinct idea of Chase and directly relates to a court dispute over the domain name. Jensen never stepped back from the community in 2001, he continued to appoint and expel members till his death and he kept was the absolute authority over the council as mentioned in the supporting documents to the court cases:

The parties consider Dr. Jensen to be an authoritative figure in the sIBC, and his writings are considered binding upon the sIBC. Dr. Jensen appointed the original members of the second International Baha'i Council, calling them the "12 Apostles."

Dr. Jensen set up the corporation so that the membership of the board of directors was comprised of members of the council. The corporate bylaws provide that appointment and removal of directors/council members was to occur pursuant to the Book of Order. The Book of Order provides that only Dr. Jensen, had the power to appoint or remove council members. p. 4

Whatever <uhj.net> says or doesn't say is completely irrelevant this argument, which is over what Jensen said, that's the whole point. Chase wants to use the domain name as an underhanded way of getting more search hits, so he needs to pretend that he calls his group the House of Justice, and now you're trying to change history to say that Leland Jensen called it that, when there is no evidence to prove it, and evidence that contradicts it. You're supporting document is from a website that Chase conveniently is in complete control over. I won't let you pretend this is no big deal. Cuñado - Talk 07:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, good points. But, you've read over the court documents yourself, right? Did you miss that part about the IBC being the true UHJ? Both groups agree that the IBC has the Guardian as it's president. Both agree that upon it's inception in '91 it would begin to evolve into the UHJ; the understanding among us all, that is clear through analogies in Doc's writings, is that both the child and the man are the same being throughout its growth and evolution. All of us have always understood that the IBC and the UHJ were the same entity. Neal did not make this concept up; it's a core teaching from Doc's Covenant Fireside (available on bupc.org), his writings, and if you really want to get into it, I have an audio file of him teaching it in a Covenant fireside from 1989. This is not unique to either BUPC group.

I'm not pretending this is no big deal, but you're not being honest if you say you believe that Jensen didn't teach these things. He wrote it in the Most Mighty Document, published in 1989, 91, 96, and 20004, and in several other books that are out of print. But that's niether here nor there, as the court documents show that both groups in the division believe what I just previously explained. Which source would you like me to use, the Most Mighty Document or the court case. Sourcing this is not an issue. If you don't like that it's what we believe (everyone who calls themself a BUPC>for and against Chase), that is not our problem, and it shouldn't be used as a motivator in trying to viel this truth about us. I'll let you cool down and meditate on it, but while you are, search yourself and be honest about this stand you're taking. Is it verifiablity at the issue, cuz I've got that covered from about 6 different angles. Jeff 07:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Just remember that this isn't a place for propaganda. Find a verifiable reference outside of Chase-run websites that Jensen called the sIBC the Universal House of Justice, and not in a reference to its potential or future goals. If you can find it then hats off to you. Cuñado - Talk 08:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Cunado. If Chase is calling the sIBC the Universal House of Justice, then that a novelty of his apparently and not Jensen's. The BUPC have made a great deal out of the "Four Stage Plan" or whatever, and it's interesting to see that Chase has moved through all of them so fast, when Jensen spent his career criticizing the Custodians/House for doing the same thing. MARussellPESE 14:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Cunado. I'm sure whatever he says is correct. Cunado19's sockpuppet 22:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow thanks, I'm glad I have so much support. Cuñado - Talk 22:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Look guys, I don't want to over do this point in any way, but there seems to be assumptions be made here that are incorrect. The core BUPC belief is that the firts IBC of Shoghi Effemdi was the fully empowered UHJ at that time, when Shoghi Effendi passed on. BUPC do not accept Mason to be the successor of Shoghi Effendi, but accept the UHJ to be the successor to Shoghi Effendi. We accept that the first IBC with Mason as president WAS the activated UHJ. BUPC see the "hands" derailing the people away from that UHJ with full UHJ powewrs in appointed stage, to interpose themsleves as "custodians" over an interum - in which they then go to a diferent UHJ they had elected, instead of the one Shoghi Effendi set up and appointed.

BUPC see that it was Doc's goal to re-establish the UHJ with Pepe which he did in 1991. We accept Dr. Jensen as the "embryonic" UHJ until he is succeeded by the appointed body of the UHJ in the 24 apostles and the guardian (Davidic). This is why we do not see Mason, Pepe and Neal as reciving the conferred infallibility. We see the UHJ recieving the infalliblity after Shoghi Effendi - but we see the UHJ already set up by Shoghi hmself in 1951 with an AGHSAN at the head of it. Thus we see the main people confused in following the wrong UHJ whereas we say this sIBC is the true one, the true UHJ still in it's appointed stage but with 25 memebrs - according the propehcy - instead of 9. This is BUPC belief. I was in the room in Monatana when Dr. Jensnen not ony said this, but wrote it in several of his epsitles which were read aloud.

This point aside, it is NOT made up by Neal Chase, but is exactly what Doc established.

This is why the BUPC are not really as "guardian group". We believe the infallible gaudrianship ended after two individuals - 'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi, and then it - the conferred infallibiliy - passed on to the UHJ which was already in the world with full powers in 1951 waiting to be activated upon Shoghi's passing. This is why Mason wrote that the 'gaurdians were not infallible' meaning that those specific guardians who were the presidents of the UHJ in all its phases were not infallible for the decions of the full body, of which their vote is one, alone are freed from all error.

This is a UNIQUE belief of the BUPC, it can be found in the Most Mighty Document, and deserves to be on the BUPC pages.

What we refer to now as Pepe's test is that we believe that the Test is to recognize the true UHJ from fakes, like those in the law suit against us, and that the criteria for recognizing the true UHJ is the one with the Davidic King as the president. Thus the test on who is the Davidic King - guardan different from that of Shoghi - is really a test to see who is the true UHJ. This is not proganda or something from Neal, but the true BUPC belief; you can verify it in the Most Mighty Document yourself. See the article entitled Understanding the Dochotmomy. You all may attack and jibe at these beliefs all you want, but they are what we hold true, and Doc's writings easily prove all of what I've said here. Jeff 00:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll throw in my two cents.

At the time of Dr. Jensen's passing the sIBC was considered to have a sphere of jurisdiction over a handful of local councils and a number of individual believers, mostly in the United States. Dr. Jensen anticipated the sIBC to evolve into the Baha'i Court, the 2nd stage, during his final years or shortly thereafter. The UHJ was the anticipated final stage when the majority of the world would become Baha'i. In Dr. Jensen's writings he frequently referred to this body as "the IBC/UHJ". From my understanding he meant that the sIBC he established was the one that was going to evolve into the UHJ, distinguishing it as the true, authoritative one as compared to the mainstream version. It was always understood that the UHJ would be the fully developed, universally elected body. During Dr. Jensen's lifetime and after his passing the sIBC was an appointed body. Jeff is correct that the true UHJ is recognized as having the Guardian/Davidic King at its head, but the version Dr. Jensen established represented the embryonic form as Shoghi Effendi stated in his 1951 cablegram, not the fully functioning UHJ. Obviously the sIBC was considered the authoritative body of the BUPC but to say it was the UHJ is a stretch due to the fact a number of provisions in the W&T had not been realized -- The body had not evolved to that point as yet. Davecornell 03:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

~ As tempted as I am to simply revert the changes that were just made to the BUPC section moments ago by Cunado, I'd should first ask:

1. What's the justification for removing the source that was demanded so adamantly only 24 hours ago?
2. Why is this already brief summary being scaled back? Please don't even try to tell me it's too lengthy or wordy. I can understand if you're trying to improve sentence structure, but there's a difference between word-smithing and intentionally excising important content.
3. Please tell me why stating the reasons why Jensen rejected the UHJ is being opposed and removed no matter what attempt I make to reword it? Those are verifiable statements. What gives?

Here's my issue. Doc was asked at a forum that if you had to sum up the BUPC in one or two sentences, what would you say. His response to that was what I recently included in the BUPC section about the Guardian being necessary to distinguish who the true UHJ was. I believe as this is even in the by-laws of his IBC, this oposition is unwarranted. Jeff 07:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific about the scaling back and such. I believe I deleted something about Chase that was repetitious if that's what you're talking about.

Your reference was: (p. 49) The link goes to a document that has 13 pages. I'm sure you didn't do that on purpose but you'll have to double check those things. Also, the statement you were verifying was that Jensen intended that the sIBC would become the House of Justice at the end of a process which included being recognized as a court, a statement that doesn't need verification. I asked for a reference that Jensen considered his council to be the Universal House of Justice, and not in reference to its potential or future goals. I already mentioned that if you insist on using the term "Universal House of Justice" then it needs clarification, and since you continue adding it, I added a clarification. Cuñado - Talk 07:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Cuñado is trying to keep this section under control viz. its size. This section is twice the size of any other Remeyite group. The entire fourth paragraph (sIBC) is redundant, and this minutiae should be discussed on the BUPC page. I'm moving it there now.

Jeff, you have an entire suite of articles. Why is it necessary to dominate the Remeyite groups here on this article with details of beliefs when the point of article is discussing the points of schism? It should be about as succinct as: "The BUPC rejects the formation of the so-called mainstream Universal House of Justice, and has established its own succession of Guardians and Universal House of Justice." MARussellPESE 12:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the points about rejecting the Haifa-Universal House of Justice and having their own Guardian is repetitive. Every group here rejects the Universal House of Justice, and the issue of Pepe and Chase are already discussed. That would only be helpful if someone jumped right to that section without reading a single word of the rest of the page.

Also MARussellPESE, notice that one of the paragraphs is not exactly about the BUPC, but about the progression of Remey's followers and the New Mexico assembly. It is necessary background but could likewise go under another section. Cuñado - Talk 17:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Cunado, you wrote that into the section, remember? I never could understand why, but as it explains the transition from being a follower of Remey's to forming his own group, I figured just as well. But, you rewrote the section yourself. Jeff 18:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't explain myself very well. I was saying that it's ok that the section is a bit longer than others because one paragraph is not explicitly about the BUPC. Not counting that paragraph it's an appropriate length. Cuñado - Talk 18:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It's all good. I feel the content has reached a fair representation. This lastest content I contributed here and in the BUPC article I had come across listening to old audio files of the weekly forums. I felt since Doc used to stress it so often, that it was a nice & succinct way to sum up the distinction we feel sets us apart from other groups. Thanks. Jeff 00:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)