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
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
