Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 18, 2001, Page 104
recognizes Baha‘u‘llah, and his understanding of the teachings deepens, he
will gradually see how his own ideals are but facets in the all-embracing
Purpose of God, and will be willing to endure all manner of suffering and
frustration for the sake of the fulfillment of that divine Purpose. If, however,
the believer allows his own ideals and purposes to retain their pre-eminence
in his thinking, and he finds he cannot pursue them as he wishes, it may
result in his leaving the Faith to pursue them in other ways. This is what
would seem to have happened to the friends you speak of.
This Baha‘i is then scolded for continuing to pursue his ideals within the Baha‘i Faith, but
independently of the institutional structure.43
A number of young intellectuals found themselves together in the Los Angeles area during
the mid-70s. They became a distinct subgroup there in the nation‘s largest Baha‘i
community, separated both by the generation gap from the Faith‘s leadership, and from the
rest of the community by their training and critical discourse. They began a series of study
classes, where no topic was to be off-limits and the discussion would be rational and
intellectual. The LA Study Class also began circulating to those who were interested in
these discussions but unable to attend a small, local newsletter, consisting mostly of
discussions of aspects of Baha‘i history and scripture. While the LA study class notes were
available by subscription only, they inevitably fell into the hands of those who were
disturbed by their content, and turned them in to Baha‘i authorities. In April 1979, the
Universal House of Justice sent the American National Spiritual Assembly a letter expressing
concerns that the study class newsletter ―displayed an ignorance of the basic teachings of
the Faith,‖ was in ―poor taste,‖ and contained comments which could cause ―severe tests to
a believer.‖ NSA members were sent to talk to the study class participants, complaining
about the content while contradictorily asserting that it was not the Assembly‘s intent to
censor the discussions. For example, it was alleged that the newsletter contained
―destructive criticism‖ and displayed ―partisanship.‖ These charges puzzled class members,
who were told that these objectionable aspects of their publication would become ―clear
upon reflection.‖ This sort of vague disapproval and the expectation that Baha‘is should
instinctively know where the lines are and exercise self-censorship would become standard
for the Baha‘i administration in dealing with public discourse. Eventually, the NSA demanded
that the newsletter be subject to review. While there were plans to appeal, the class
gradually disbanded and the matter dropped.44
In 1985, a few of the remnants of the study class met to launch a more substantial
quarterly magazine, called dialogue, which was aimed at Baha‘is with social concerns and
intellectual interests. There was tension between the editors and the National Spiritual
Assembly almost from the outset, including objections over plans to use the subtitle, ―A
Baha‘i Journal of Commentary and Opinion,‖ since the use of the word ―Baha‘i‖ was thought
to imply that the magazine reflected official views. The prepublication review requirement
caused serious difficulties in the publication schedule, and a dozen articles were censored
outright, with several others being allowed to appear only after revisions had been made. In
May 1987 the editors were summoned to meet with the National Spiritual Assembly and
were accused of ―undermining the authority of the NSA.‖ Even more sympathetic members
said the ―tone‖ of the magazine ―was not right.‖ However, dialogue rapidly grew popular,
becoming the largest paid subscription Baha‘i periodical in North America. Since it had a
somewhat liberal bent, this indicates that a fair number of Baha‘is are open to this
perspective.45 It is important to note, that not all members of the NSA or UHJ supported
the crackdown on the magazine, and the editors have reported receiving private
expressions of sympathy from this out-voted minority.46
The final crisis was precipitated by the submission of the article A Modest Proposal that
outlined reform proposals for the ―revitalization of the American Baha‘i community.‖ Most of

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 18, 2001, Page 105
these reforms were fairly mild, with the most controversial from the Baha‘i perspective
being the abolition of prepublication review and the imposition of term limits on National
Assembly members.47 In response NSA conducted an investigation in which twelve people
associated with the magazine were questioned one by one. This so threatened the editors
and staff that they wrote frantic appeal letters to the UHJ. NSA member Firuz Kazemzadeh
denounced both A Modest Proposal and the dialogue editors on the floor of the 1988
National Convention and read aloud from these letters as proof of their disrespect for the
Institutions. This forced the closure of the magazine, since the Baha‘i community, with its
history of shunning internal enemies, would not support anything run by a group openly
named as dissidents by the NSA. Four of the editors were sanctioned, an unprecedented
move since none of them had broken any well-established Baha‘i law.48
By this time, those associated with ―the LA group‖ were clearly perceived by the Baha‘i
administration as dangerous subversives, with a political agenda. In a letter to one of the
editors the UHJ commented:
This incident was merely the latest episode in a history of problems going
back some twelve years, originating with the study groups in Los Angeles and
its promotion of the wide circulation of the records of its discussions,
continuing through some of the publications…and being developed through
certain of the articles appearing in ―dialogue.‖
It is clear that many different individuals were involved over the years in the
study group and ―dialogue.‖ However, certain believers have been
prominently associated with all three and form a connecting link in the minds
of many of the friends.
In the Baha‘i community methods and mechanisms are provided within the
Administrative Order to elicit and make the best use of the ideas and hopes of
individual believers in ways that enrich the pattern of Baha‘i life without
disrupting the community. There may be many occasions on which individual
believers are permitted or even encouraged by their Assembly to promote
their ideas, but independent attempts by individual Baha‘is to canvass
support for their views among their fellow believers are destructive of the
unity of the Cause. To attempt, in opposition to the institutions of the Faith,
to form constituencies for certain proposals and programmes may not
necessarily lead to Covenant-breaking, but it is a societal factor for disruption
against which the Covenant is designed to protect the Faith. It is the process
by which parties are formed and by which a religion is riven into contending
sects.
...we have highlighted two aspects which lie at the root of the problem: the
un-Baha‘i marshalling of a group working to bring pressure on the institutions
of the Cause, and the intemperate criticism employed.49
It is difficult to locate, in either the LA study class notes or dialogue exactly where or how
the ―criticism‖ becomes ―intemperate‖ or even how they put ―pressure‖ on the Institutions.
There was no campaign in the ordinary political sense, although the dialogue editors were
falsely charged with distributing A Modest Proposal to the delegates at the National
Convention.50 They were also accused, because the article was presented as a group effort,
with seven co-authors, of ―circulating a petition‖.51 The fact that a magazine, which never
published a single article that did not pass through the review system, and an unpublished
article concerning reform could arouse such a reaction from Baha‘i authorities reveals a
deep fear over the loss of control of the membership.