The Haifa Baha’is point out that Mason Remey was one of the 26 hands present at the conclave who signed the document that no guardian could have been appointed. In this article, we aim to shed light on the reasons behind Remey's decision to sign the document. We'll explore the principle of collective action in the Baha'i Faith and Remey's commitment to maintaining unity, even when he had inner disagreements.
Brent Mathieu mentions:
An explanation of Remey’s signature on the document, despite his belief in the necessity of a living Guardian, is that the established Baba’i principle in collective action is that once an assembly reaches a majority decision, all dissenters cease opposition, and accept the decision to maintain unity, even if they believe it in error. Baha’is trust God that eventually the truth will be revealed, and error corrected.
(Mathieu, “Biography of Charles Mason Remey,” on the Heart of the Baha’i Faith forum, December 28, 2004.)
Mathieu is apparently correct since Remey, in commenting on the documents signed “Faithfully Yours in the Service of the Beloved Guardian,” remarks.
Remey himself mentions:
When I have objected to this statement that I am obliged because of the majority policy of the Cause to place my signature to (despite the fact that I amt opposed to so doing), I am told that the beloved Guardian planned out this Ten-Year Crusade and that is that ... ”
(“Extracts from the Daily Observations,” p. 38).
Remey mentions his “support” for “whatever the majority stand for” in the following comments, although he expresses his inner disagreement:
I support them — the nobles of the Faith — in whatever the majority stand for, thus I am supporting the face they make before the people, while in my inner thoughts I know that they are on the wrong track entirely and are leading the Faith to destruction.
(“Extracts from the Daily Observations,” p. 68)
Daily I am obliged to sign my name to many letters and communications going out from Haifa to all quarters of the Baha’i World thus endorsing the majority action and thought of the Custodian Hands in the Holy Land. All of this is, of course, most repugnant to me personally....”
(“Extracts from the Daily Observations,” p. 76)
Although Remey is following the agreed-upon Baha’i policy in collective action, the fact is Remey did sign these documents, which the hands later (after Remey’s Proclamation) were very quick to point out that he had signed.
To conclude, Mason Remey's decision to sign the document denying the appointment of a guardian, despite his inner disagreements, reflects his dedication to the Baha'i principle of collective action and the importance of maintaining unity within the community. While his signature on these documents may have been a point of contention, it's essential to understand his actions within the broader context of Baha'i principles and his commitment to the faith's unity.

Comments
Post a Comment