The New Baha’i Era (Chicago Manifesto)

 

Early in the new year (only a few months after the first conclave), two American hands, Paul Haney and Corinne True broke the pact of silence agreed upon and along with the U.S. National Assembly, proceeded to announce the end of the guardianship in a document entitled “A New Baha’i Era”. But, informed of their intentions, the custodians sent an urgent cablegram to them on Feb 3^rd 1958, to stop the circulation of the document, which had already been read at forty conferences in the United States and mailed to all American NSAs who were daughter assemblies or allies of the American NSA. (Ministry of the Custodians, p.98)

The Baha’i Era document is provided by Frank Schlatter in his work, “The Hands of the Cause and ‘The Chicago Manifesto’”. It is rather a short document of only two and half printed pages, section 3 (pg. 4-6) of Schlatters 7-page essay. It seeks to prepare the believers for life in the faith without a guardian.

The custodian hands were holding out hope for the Bahais that the UHJ, when elected in 1963, could maybe reinstate the guardianship in some way. At least, this was the position they took to avoid confrontation, not that the guardianship was completely over, as they most likely believed. Moreover, they held that Shoghi Effendi was still guiding them from the Abha Kingdom, especially in regard to the future UHJ, although the New Baha’i Era spoke of being “without his guidance for the future UHJ”. The document goes on to state:

“Since a successor could only be chosen and designated by Shoghi Effend in his own lifetime, the friends must dismiss all hopeful expectations that a will appointing a second Guardian may later be found. The door to the appointment of a second Guardian, as far as can be determined by reference to the Bahai writings, is closed. Neither the Hands of the Cause nor the UHJ has been endowed with authority for such appointment.” (p.5)

All hope of the UHJ reinstation the guardianship is, thus, closed by this document, since netiher the hands not the UHJ have authority for such appointment. Moreover Holly who was the principle writer of the document seems to discredit a will as the means of appointment, noting the appointment was to be made in the lifetime of the guardian.

In describing the duties of the newly formed nine custodian hands, the document says: “Finally the nine hands will exercise the authority to expel Covenant-breakers from the Baha'i community”

(The main question still remains who will expel the members of UHJ if they are unfaithful to the covenant and are actually causing more harm to the faith than any good)

The question of the guardianship apparently was widely discussed and there were many questions that needed answering. But the custodians, in their pact of silence agreed upon at Bahji in their first conclave were ignoring questions.

Inspite of the many letters pouring in seeking direction the custodians had kept quiet on the question. Mason Remey explains that by avoiding the subject, the custodians were conditioning the believers to forget Guardianship and reinforce themselves in their own leadership.

Remey marveled at the belief that the UHJ would be infallible only on condition that guardian sat as head of the UHJ. (The same has been clarified by Abdul Baha in his W&T as well)

The UHJ scam:

Going against the Will and Testament of Abdul Baha, the Sans Guardian UHJ says “The infallibility of the UHJ operating in its ordained sphere, has not been made dependent upon the presence in its membership of the Guardian of the Cause of God”