POSTED ON BEHALF OF THE GUARDIAN OF THE BAHA'I FAITH

DOES SHOGHI EFFENDI CONTINUE TO FUNCTION AS THE GUARDIAN OF THE FAITH IN THE
NEXT WORLD?

How can any Baha'i who has read the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha
rationally claim that the Guardian of the Cause of God continues to exercise
his functions in the next world?

For, to so argue, as some incredulously do, how do they rationally explain,
notwithstanding the explicit terms of the divinely-conceived and sacred Will
and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha that require the Guardian to preside as "the
sacred head and distinguished member for life" of the Universal House of
Justice, and "attend in person its deliberations," he is able to perform
this essential role from the next world, and exercise as well the following
additional rights and functions conferred upon him in that sacred and
immutable Document that unquestionably require the Guardian to be present in
this world?

· "Should he not attend in person its [UHJ] deliberations, he must
appoint one to represent him."

If Hands of the Cause were not independently authorized to interpret
and apply the Laws in the Most Holy Book, the Kitab-i-Aqdas before the
first Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith passed in 1957, why would anyone
believe that something changed so that they could become legitimately
authorized to do so after his death?

Nothing changed. Both before and after the first Guardian's death, no
woman or man on Earth, apart from a living Guardian of the Bahá'í
Faith has had legitimate authority either to interpret or, independent
of a living Guardian, to apply Laws specifically recorded in Bahá'í
Holy Writ and Holy Text.

It was a violation of Bahá'í Law that a Hand of the Cause
independently called for a Huququ'llah Conference in 1987, and another
violation that a group of men called for application of that Law
beginning at Ridvan of 1992. That group of men was devoid of
legitimate authority to make that call.

The third Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith has stated that it is not yet
time for the application of the Law of Huququ'llah because women and
men are already under heavy burden of taxes by National governments.
He has stated that the Huququ'llah is for a future time.

Susan, Pat, Viv, and anyone else who responds here to campaigns
against the House of Justice,

Sometimes I've considered trying to refute the arguments of people who
are campaigning against the House of justice, but apart from notorious
logical fallacies, and some possible implications I see in what you
do, I've never been able to find any arguments to refute.

Apart from notorious logical fallacies, have you ever seen any
arguments here against following Baha'u'llah, or against serving the
interests of the Universal House of Justice? If so, will you please
point them out to me? It would help me a lot if you would put them in
logical form: a coherent series of statements leading from premises to
a conclusion, like this for example:

Premise: Members of Baha'i institutions have done such and so.
(Other premises)
Conclusion: It's better not to follow Baha'u'llah
or
Conclusion: It's better not to serve the interests of the House of
Justice

Here's another example: