Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 18, 2001, Page 100
the time the NSA intervened the cult leader had moved out of state. This young follower
was subjected to a two-hour interrogation in which he was accused of conspiring with his
former mentor.23 The possibility of tyrannical local leadership also seems to be revealed in a
number of allegations that emerged during the course of a lawsuit against the LSA of
Albuquerque. According to some reports, the Chairman of the LSA claimed to be ―the Voice
of God‖ in his community, and thus was to be obeyed without question.24
While this extreme level of high-handedness is unusual, strong-minded and pushy local
leaders are not uncommon, and many disgruntled Baha‘is report that they feel powerless to
influence local affairs, even though in theory problems are supposed to be solved through
community consultation.
The emphasis on building a millenarian future through converting others to the religion and
creating local assemblies has caused the Baha‘i communities to sacrifice certain qualitative
aspects of their collective life. Since most Baha‘i communities are quite small, they do not
have the resources to offer services that most Americans would take for granted from their
churches. Only the largest even have a public building to meet in, with most Baha‘i
communities meeting in private homes. Pastoral care can be inadequate and amateurish.
While the larger communities are fairly well-run, the scheduling of meetings can often be
slipshod and irregular in small communities where members are working Baha‘i activities
around other personal commitments. Baha‘is are often exhorted to be patient with these
things and told that the administrative order is ―embryonic‖ and that the quality of
community life will get better as the Faith grows. In this emphasis on future expectations,
rather than serving the needs of the membership, the Baha‘i Faith can be fairly compared
with the Jehovah‘s Witnesses, another strongly missionary group with a high turnover in
membership.25
Consultation and Baha’i Culture
Because Baha‘i scriptures give great importance to consultation as a method of problem-
solving, making plans and discussions of community affairs are a regular feature of Baha‘i
life. In theory, any individual may raise any issue or question at Feast, Convention, or with
any Baha‘i official or institution. However, once a decision is made, the community is
expected to unite behind it, with any individual objections stifled. Backbiting is strongly
condemned in Baha‘i scripture, and this prohibition is also extended to mean not only
individuals, but institutions, so voicing complaints or criticisms is difficult, and may meet
with disapproval. Also, some members simply feel intimidated by stronger personalities in
the community, and have trouble expressing themselves to a group. Public dissent is not at
all tolerated, although the rise of cyberspace in the ‗90s has weakened the administration‘s
ability to control this. In a revealing talk in 1988, then-Secretary of External Affairs Firuz
Kazemzadeh made these remarks:
It also must be stated that, within the Baha‘i community, there are
individuals, and sometimes they even become groups, who do question the
activities of the Baha‘i institution. They are welcome to raise those questions
in Nineteen Day Feasts. They are welcome to take those questions,
objections, wishes, to higher institutions. If somebody is dissatisfied with a
local assembly, he is not prevented from appealing to the NSA and actions of
the NSA can be appealed to the Universal House of Justice. It is something
else when whispering campaigns or petitions are sent around for signatures
objecting to the activities of the institutions. That also may be something
which is countenanced by American democracy but has nothing to do with the
Baha‘i Faith. We must always remember that our institutions are an unusual
and unique combination of theocracy in the best sense of the term with
democracy. The institutions of the Baha‘i Faith have not been created by us,

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 18, 2001, Page 101
the institutions have been created by God. The membership is filled by us.
We have the privilege of assigning who is going to be on the institutions, but
the institutions themselves are the expression of God‘s will, communicated to
the world through a divine manifestation.26
However, Baha‘is who take their concerns through these channels often find that the
process is slow and unproductive. It may even brand them as trouble-makers, if such
complaints are not expressed in extremely deferential terms. For example, the UHJ‘s
response to an appeal letter written by the editor of the short-lived independent Baha‘i
magazine dialogue, then under investigation by the American NSA, said:
you seem to assume that all is due to machinations of certain individuals in
positions of responsibility. One can only deduce that you do not register the
significance of what you are saying. An example of this is your letter of 26
April 1988. This was not, as you describe it, just a ―rather strong letter‖ ―not
meant to be offensive or disrespectful‖. Already in the second paragraph you
indirectly accuse the Universal House of Justice of arriving at an erroneous
and unjust conclusion by failing to acquaint itself with the facts. ..
The letter as a whole is largely an attack on what you perceive to be the
failure and injustices of the National Spiritual Assembly without any indication
of an awareness that there may have been faults on your side indeed, to the
contrary, you say ―we knew we had done nothing wrong‖ and characterize
yourselves as ―Baha‘is who are innocent of any wrongdoing‖.27
Also, since the Universal House of Justice is considered to be infallible, Baha‘is are expected
to accept its decisions. It is fairly common for the House of Justice to give explanations for
its policies to individual Baha‘is who ask, but public opposition to a decision can be
considered a cause for action.
Another aspect of Baha‘i culture that inhibits freedom in community consultation is the
tendency for the consciousness of the need to ―protect‖ the Faith to create an ethic in which
community members report on one another to Baha‘i officials and institutions.28 This may
have to do with breaking Baha‘i laws concerning personal morality  sexual chastity,
abstaining from alcohol etc  but it is also not uncommon for Baha‘is to be ―turned in‖ for
having unorthodox views. Openly raising questions that reflect the concerns raised in the
literature of the various ―covenant-breaker‖ splinter groups will bring a very swift response,
and such a curious Baha‘i will certainly find himself answering the rather stern questions of
an ABM. A Baha‘i investigated in this fashion will have no access to the reports made on
him, nor is there an organized system of due process.
Based on accounts Baha‘is and former Baha‘is have given of these investigations, it seems
that ABMs vary considerably in their approach: some are threatening to the point of being
abusive other Baha‘is, even one later sanctioned, report the meetings as relatively stress-
free. In one case, a Baha‘i was subjected to an intimidating interview by two ABMs, only to
receive an official and personal apology from the higher official, a Counsellor.29 However,
since such meetings are arranged when an individual is suspect, they generally tend to be
tense, and some former Baha‘is cite them as the prelude to their resignation of
membership.
This monitoring of internal enemies can continue even after an adherent has left the
organization:
The need to protect the Faith from the attacks of its enemies may not be
generally appreciated by the friends, particularly in places where attacks have
been infrequent. However, it is certain that such opposition will increase,
become concerted, and eventually universal. The writings clearly foreshadow