Historical Announcements in the Faith of the One True God
Ross Campbell
have historically featured announcements related to those
events.
On the occasion that His Holiness the Christ commenced
His Ministry as Messiah, immediately as He stepped up out
of the Jordan River after His immersion by John the immerser,
a Voice from the heavens announced God's approval of Him.
His Holiness the Bab announced the commencement of His Mission
privately to one faithful disciple.
The historical significance of such announcements is not
related to the overt nature or private nature of the announcement.
The critical factor is the Divine Source of the announcements.
Such is the case concerning the announcement of the appointment
of the Guardians of the Baha'i Faith.
When the second Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, Charles Mason Remey,
provided Joel B. Marangella with the envelope containing his
appointment to be Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, the second Guardian
simultaneously provided him this instruction: "You will know
when to open it." That appears to me to be a very clear indication
that the opening of that milestone announcement would be
Divinely guided. The second Guardian did not say that the
envelope should be opened upon his death, neither did he say that
he himself would tell Joel B. Marangella when to open it.
Consequently, when the second Guardian, in writing, turned the
"affairs of the Faith" over to Joel B. Marangella, the immense
need for Divine assistance to carry out that responsibility impelled
Joel B. Marangella to open the envelope containing what proved to be
the letter of his appointment to be Guardian of the Baha'i Faith,
at which moment he became the third Guardian of the Baha'i Faith.
Such Divinely guided announcements are not retractable by men or
women. Rather, they are historical milestones of the Baha'i Faith
and eternally significant.
Brent Reed
You and others need to know that your position in support of
Marangella has no basis, and isn't supported by any evidence
whatsoever. Every single construction that Joel has used over the
years to support his claim to be Charles Mason Remey's duly-appointed
successor, has been thoroughly analyzed and refuted in my paper, "The
Fallacy of Joel Bray Marangella's Abdication-Activation Postulate,"
and later in another paper that I wrote titled "Mason was not Insane"
- written in response to Frank Schlatter's demand "that the followers
of Baha'u'llah under the guardianship of Jacques Soghomonian give
their rationale for their belief in Donald Harvey's guardianship's
legitimacy in light of Mason's obvious unsound mind, as evidenced by
his statements contrary to Shoghi Effendi and the Covenant."
(paraphrased)
I published both of these papers on talk.religion.bahai and added them
to the Heart of the Baha'i Faith archives library more than a year
ago, and challenged Joel or any Orthodox Baha'i to refute them, but to
date there has been complete silence.
I'm really surprised that Joel continues to promote his claim to be
Mason Remey's successor, in light of all the evidence to the contrary,
in favor of Donald Harvey being his actual successor, who, before he
died, appointed Jacques Soghomonian to become his successor upon his
death. All Baha'is knew that an appointee could never accede the
Guardianship until the death of the Guardian in office. Joel also
knew very well that his Presidency of the Second International Baha'i
Council was no guarantee that he would become Mason's successor.
Mason said so very clearly in his announcement to the Baha'is in the
Glad Tidings. And you too Ross, know very well that Mason never
turned the Faith over to Joel as Joel has claimed! This could only be
a deliberate lie from Joel, and now from you, because Joel took a
fragment of a statement by Mason, out of its context, and changed its
original conspicuous meaning to suit his claim; I guess, hoping that
most of the believers would never have access to Mason's original
letters, and would not read what he really said. The Heart of the
Baha'i Faith web site has changed all of this. Now anyone can read
for himself and confidently make the correct decision.
I'm certain that you've read my "Activation-Abdication Postulate"
paper Ross, but so others are not confused by your acts of deception,
they can access it for printing and studying by going to the Heart of
the Baha'i Faith website at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/heartofthebahaifaith and then clicking
on Files - The Guardians - IV Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, Jacques
Soghomonian - abdication_postulate.doc
My refutation of Joel's claim that there was something wrong with
Mason's mind (which has no bearing, even if it were true, on who was
his successor) is under revision. If anyone reading this would like
to read the earlier version here is a link to it:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HeartoftheBahaiFaith/message/297
I hope to eventually convince most of the followers of Baha'u'llah
that Joel's claim to the Guardianship is misguided. He has had ample
time to refute each and every point in my paper, but has decided to
hide in the shadows. I wonder why, when we all know that he readily
jumps at the opportunity to refute the Universal House of Justice, or
something written by the Hands. Why hasn't he jumped at the chance to
utterly blast my evidence into smithereens? He has not, because he
knows that he cannot.
The followers of Baha'u'llah must pray for Joel that he will muster
enough strength to abandon his outlandish claim to the Guardianship
while he's still living so that our Faith can have a chance to heal.
Ruhiyyih Khanum apparently died in infamy, because as far as we know,
she did nothing before she made her transition into the next world, to
heal the Faith of Baha'u'llah. Remember? She was the one who said:
"The principle of successorship, endowed with the right of Divine
interpretation, is the very hub of the Cause into which its Doctrines
and Laws fit like the spokes of a wheel-tear out the hub and you have
to throw away the whole thing. This is why our enemies, for a hundred
years, failed to establish anything outside the Faith which could
thrive or prosper.
It seems likely to me that Ruhiyyih was an angry woman who decided to
take
vital secrets that could heal the true faith of Baha'u'llah, to her
grave, rather than revealing what she knew, as a way of avenging her
bitterness and anger for not seeing her lineage head the Faith of
Baha'u'llah. If she did this, God help her.
I hope Joel remembers what I've just said.
Anyone may email me if they're interested in receiving a copy of the
new updated version of my "Mason was not Insane" paper.
Brent Reed
Founder & Moderator,
Heart of the Baha'i Faith
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/heartofthebahaifaith
rossca...@shaw.ca (Ross Campbell) wrote in message news:<67eada02.0308...@posting.google.com>...
Martin
Even though I know this other letter was sent already in
talk.religion.bahai, I feel it provides some answers on this tread:
*At an earlier time I posted a response to Brent Reed's assertion that
Jacques Soghomonian is the present Guardian of the Faith. I feel that
the response should be repeated, in its essentials, here.
During his ministry, Mason Remey at different times compared the
position of Guardian to the Captain of a ship or of a General
conducting a battle. One such statement was made in a letter of 6
February 1964 when he wrote:
"At times of Crisis at sea or in War, the last order of the Captain of
the ship or of the General in charge of battle must be the first order
to be obeyed. All previous orders being temporarily set aside.
"This same principle should be adhered to by the Baha'is under the
Guardianship, present conditions being what they are. These
conditions are constantly changing and the Guardian's instructions
must necessarily be changing to meet the needs which new circumstances
may bring.
"Each of the Guardian's letters are dated and signed by him. The
friends should follow the last instructions first, forgetting those
outlined in previous letters, as these may quickly become outdated by
new events. Where doubts arise, steps should be taken by the friends
to determine which previous instructions may still be considered as
binding upon them and which should be abandoned. If this is not done
in the spirit of cooperation and understanding, a great deal of
unnecessary confusion will arise and the friends will find themselves
at odds with each other. The purpose for this statement by the second
Guardian is to avoid all such situations in the future.
"Even amongst the friends under the Guardianship, there may be some
who either innocently or otherwise may be circulating and insisting
upon obedience to their own interpretations of the teachings. Let no
one heed their admonitions."
If one reads these paragraphs carefully, I believe he or she must
conclude (as I have) that Mason Remey was talking about daily
conditions within the Faith when he said that the last order should be
followed and previous orders set aside. He referred to "changing
conditions" within the Faith that would call for changed
"instructions" from the Guardian and instructions that "may quickly
become outdated by new events."
Mason Remey provided basically the same message to his supporters on
28 January 1965. In that message he wrote:
"We, under the Guardianship, are fighting a spiritual battle in which
conditions are constantly shifting and changing as they are upon a
military battlefield where the General in Command must make quick
decisions that must be carried out and without question. If his
soldiers were called together to consult and decide what should be
done, the battle would indeed end in confusion and be lost! Therefore,
the necessity that the Guardian's last orders must be obeyed first by
the believers if the unity in the faith is to be maintained!
"As in a military conflict, where conditions change suddenly, an order
may be revoked by the commander. So it is in the Baha'i Faith. The
Guardian may change his orders at any time and without consultation
when, in his opinion, the problem is acute and should be rectified at
once.
If it be necessary, the Guardian can reverse his orders from one day
to the next (as may the military commander from one hour to the next
in order to win the battle). Neither the Guardian nor the military
commander are to be questioned in order that unity be maintained."
The importance of this information is that the appointment of the
Guardian's successor is not a matter that is subject to "changing
conditions" within the ministry of the present Head of the Faith. It
is not a matter in which the believers are called upon "to determine
which previous instructions may still be considered as binding upon
them and which should be abandoned." It is not a matter in which
"conditions change suddenly" and it becomes necessary "for the
Guardian to reverse his orders from one day to the next." Instead,
it is the designation of his successor, the identification of the heir
to the headship of the Cause and there are no new "instructions
[that]must necessarily be changing to meet the needs which new
circumstances may bring." There are no rapidly changing conditions.
Unfortunately, those who identify themselves as "Followers of the IV
Guardian" apparently do so on the basis of a misreading of such
statements as Mason Remey made on 6 February 1964 and 28 January 1965.
Thus, after Mason Remey had activated the second International Baha'i
Council and turned the affairs of the Faith over to Joel Marangella,
thus abdicating the Guardianship to him, those who insisted on
'following the latest directive' from the Guardian believed that when
Mason Remey (then the past Guardian) named Donald Harvey to be his
successor that such an appointment took precedence over the second
Guardian's previous appointment of Joel Marangella.
Orthodox Baha'is contend that once the mantle of Guardianship had been
transferred to Joel Marangella, Mason Remey was not qualified to
appoint a successor Guardian since he was no longer the Guardian of
the Faith.
It is clear that Donald Harvey saw himself as the third Guardian of
the Faith, and he did subsequently name as his successor Jacques
Soghomonian. Those believers who maintain that Harvey was the rightful
successor now give their allegiance to Soghomonian and see him as
Guardian IV.
Orthodox Baha'is do not condemn the followers of Jacques Soghomonian
for the position they have taken, just as they do not condemn the
followers of the sans-Guardian Universal House of Justice for
accepting that institution as the authority of their Faith. Indeed,
because the followers of Jacques Soghomonian recognize the need for a
living Guardian, the Orthodox Baha'is have a greater feeling of
affinity for the Soghomonian followers than they do for the members of
the majority body, who, in the perspective of Orthodox Baha'is, have
abandoned the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha. In both cases,
though, Orthodox Baha'is feel that the members of the majority body
and the believers who follow Jacques Soghomonian have followed their
respective leaders on the basis of a misinterpretation they have made
of a previous Center of the Cause.
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter*
(Comment of Martin, me: Could a Guardian of the Faith actually
identify a previous Guardian of the Faith as being a violator of the
Covenant? I don't think so. Quoting Frank Schlatter:)
*Yet that is the position that a follower of Donald Harvey and Jacques
Soghomonion is, of necessity, going to be forced to accept inasmuch as
after Mason Remey turned the affairs of the Faith over to Joel
Marangella he - Mason Remey - identified the things that Shoghi
Effendi had done as "violations of the Faith."
I do not hold Mason Remey to be responsible for the statements he
made after his abdication of the Guardianship to Joel. You, on the
other hand, must accept the fact that Mason Remey -- who you contend
was still the Guardian -- wrote "that Shoghi Effendi (following what
'Abdu'l-Baha wrote) intended to build the Administration of the
dispensation of the Babi Faith" and "The first Guardian of the Faith
so construed the Master 'Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament that he
formed his Administration upon the Babi Faith and not upon the Baha'i
Faith." Further, you must accept that Mason Remey wrote that Shoghi
Effendi's "mistake" had caused so much confusion and misunderstanding
that he, as second Guardian, found it necessary "to discard all which
Shoghi Effendi did."
Brent, I could not accept such statements when they were made in the
60's, and I cannot accept them now. Perhaps you can come up with your
own rationalizations of what those statements mean, but please do not
foist those rationalizations onto me. In the mid-60's I endured the
pain occasioned by such statements; I'm not interested in someone
telling me that I should realize those statements are true when I know
that they are not.
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter*
I provide here some supplementary answers by Frank Schlatter sent to
talk.religion.bahai in 2002:
*****
*Brent Reed wrote that he was providing "answers" to some of my
concerns. They may be his answers, but I do not see them as mine.
Brent wrote: "With that reasoning Frank, should we reject
Baha'u'llah's claim, just because we weren't there to witness it?"
Note that in the case of Brent's question above (his "answer") he
misses the point that I was making. I wrote that "in order for some
of Brent's views to be accepted as factual, it would be necessary for
Brent to have been at the scene of the described action."
The word "some" does not mean "all". In addition, my earlier posting
indicates that where one only has written records and hearsay to rely
upon and where there is contradictory evidence, he or she will find it
necessary to choose which sources to trust. As I noted, Brent clearly
does not trust Joel Marangella as a source. Instead, he has chosen to
trust other sources. That is his right, but he should not feel that
others must see things as he does, or that his source(s) necessarily
provide accurate statements of fact. Unfortunately, whenever Brent
Reed writes regarding the Orthodox Baha'i Faith there is an
accusatory, strongly judgmental tone that he employs toward those of
us who don't accept his perspective.
(Personal comment of Martin, myself: this judgmental tone doesn't help
the cause of Soghomonian at all.)
In response to my rejection of his accusation that Joel Marangella had
taken credit for coming up with the designation "Orthodox Baha'i" he
offers the question "Whom do you believe came up with the term
Orthodox Baha'i Frank?" Such a question does not serve as an
"answer" to my concerns. Instead, it is Brent's way of avoiding the
issue at hand, which, in this case, deals with providing statements of
fact which show conclusively that Joel Marangella has taken credit
for the designation.
Brent does not provide evidence of anger directed by Joel at Mason
Remey. He does, of course, place his trust in what Joseph Pepe wrote
regarding how he (Pepe) had become a whipping boy, but that is not
factual evidence of any anger on Joel Marangella's part toward Mason
Remey. Again, what Brent has done is to avoid the issue at hand.
In my earlier posting I wrote that there is no evidence of any
collusion of Rex King and Joel Marangella.
Brent's 'answer': "Frank, are you denying this?" Then he raises
additional questions, but he does not provide any statements of fact
to establish that there was any collusion on anybody's part.
I wrote earlier that "Brent says that Joel Marangella and Rex King
'decided that Joel should proclaim his accession to the
Guardianship.' Brent has no factual evidence to support that position
either."
Brent still offers no factual support for such a 'decision' as he
postulated. Instead, he asks, "Frank, are you denying this?"
My earlier posting cited Brent's statement "they chose to set aside
the fact that Mason had just recently publicly named Donald Harvey."
And I noted that Brent had no factual evidence to support that
position either.
Brent has now written (as factual evidence?): "Of course they set it
aside Frank. Otherwise Joel and Rex would have obeyed the wishes of
the Guardian and thrown their support behind his decision to have
Donald as his successor upon his death."
As to Brent's 'factual evidence', I'm getting the impression that
Brent apparently does not know what I mean by factual evidence. By
factual evidence I do not mean opinions or judgments projected from
what one may infer from what he or she has read. Nor is factual
evidence conjecture or what second and third parties may have to say
on a given matter. And, certainly, factual evidence is not the posing
of additional questions.
Brent wrote that Mason Remey had declared Rex King as a manifestation
of satan and cast out of the Faith by Mason in a letter dated
September 13, 1969. Since I no longer have the September 13, 1969
letter in my files, I do not know whether Mason Remey used the term
"covenant-breaker" in his reference to Rex King. Furthermore, I do
not recall that he had excommunicated him from the Faith that, in late
1966, he had renamed the Abha World Faith or the New Abha Faith. But
even if Mason Remey had made such an identification in 1969, I do not
consider that statement to have any more validity than the strongly
negative statements Mason Remey made in late 1966 and in January of
1967.
Brent asks: "Don't you agree that Rex was probably livid over Mason's
decision to expel him?" I have no information, one way or another,
regarding how Rex King may have reacted to what Mason Remey wrote
about him. And I do not accept as statements of fact Brent's
conjectures about what subsequently transpired. So I'm not in
agreement with what Brent postulates, particularly his projection of
Joel's "anger over Mason's change of mind about the one to succeed
him." Brent refers to "ideal ingredients for a likely conspiracy" and
he maintains that "others would be justified in thinking that there
was a conspiracy." Brent apparently accepts his conspiracy theory as
fact, which should be no surprise to anyone who has observed the
manner in which Brent utilizes whatever information he has received
concerning Joel Marangella and the Orthodox Baha'i Faith. Prior to
his departure from the Orthodox Faith, Brent opposed Joel Marangella,
and subsequent to his being identified by the third Guardian as a
violator, he has continued to vent his opposition.
If Brent's "only purpose is to help heal the damage that had been
done to the Faith of Baha'u'llah", my feeling is that he'd be doing us
all a great service if he would restrict himself to reading the
Writings and publicizing those Writings to others. And I would hope
that he would be more accurate in his presentation of what the Central
Figures and the first Guardian wrote than he has been in his reference
to what Mason Remey wrote after turning the affairs of the Faith over
to Joel Marangella. The statements made by Mason Remey in late 1966
and in January of 1967 were not as innocuous as Brent would have
others believe -- particularly those people who have never seen what
he wrote in January of 1967 when, in the opinion of Orthodox Baha'is,
he was no longer the Guardian. Brent, of course, chooses to gloss
over those statements, apparently feeling that they are of little or
no consequence. But to those of us who were in the Orthodox Baha'i
Faith at the time and to the Orthodox Baha'is who have joined since
that time, those statements are very important indeed, for we believe
that they are statements which would not be made by a Guardian of the
Faith about a predecessor in the office of Guardian.
Sincerely,
Frank Schlatter*
Even though those answers might not entirely satisfy Mr. Reed, at
least we can find some valuable info;-)
Martin
mult...@aros.net
Ross,
If you remember at one of the conferences we attended several years
ago, we discussed the the similarite4is and differences (there are
many) between the mantle being passed from Saul to David, and how
David even though rightfully the new heir to Saul would not ciritize
Saul for he had been and was still for purposes of respect God's
annointed even though the annointing had clearly gone to David from
Saul.
It is in the area of how the annointing passed from Saul who was first
the King, and God's removing the mantle to David, yet Saul once the
mantle was gone did not himself realize its passing though he did grow
more depressed.
Do you see any similarities still in this with the passing og the
mantle of Guardianship from Mason Remey to Joel B. Marangella?
On 1 Aug 2003 18:59:14 -0700, rossca...@shaw.ca (Ross Campbell)
wrote:
Brent Reed
Blessings,
Brent
From: brent...@my-deja.com (Brent Madison Reed)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.bahai
Subject: Dear Joel...
Date: 19 Nov 2001 11:53:01 -0800
To: Joel Bray Marangella
Guardian of the Orthodox Baha'i Faith
Dear Joel:
I am saddened and very disappointed to hear that you have decided to
contact all of your Orthodox Baha'i supporters to urge them not to
have any contact with me. Marilyn Meyer, corresponding secretary for
the Orthodox Baha'i community in New Mexico forwarded your letter to
me on Saturday, November 10th, which I will now quote:
From: "Joel B. Marangella"
To: Marilyn Meyer
Subject: Contact with Brent Reed
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 19:07:18 +0000
"Dear Marilyn and esteemed members of the Council,
I consider the efforts of Brent Reed to undermine my Guardianship in
his communications with the faithful friends and postings on his
internet forum "Heart of the Baha'i Faith" as insidious and a
distinct violation of the Covenant of Baha'u'llah. I, therefore
strongly urge the friends to discontinue any further communication
with one who is obviously only interested in promoting his own
nefarious agenda.
With loving Abha greetings to all.
Faithfully your brother in El Abha,
Joel
You have declared me a violator of the Covenant, referring to my
activity on the Heart of the Baha'i Faith Discussion group as an
"insidious and distinct violation of the Covenant." If my activity on
the Heart of the Baha'i Faith, and my letters to Orthodox Baha'is and
answers to their questions have been violations of the Covenant of
Baha'u'llah, then why did you not tell me specifically how I was in
error in hopes that I might come to understand my mistakes, before you
resorted to such a drastic measure?
Yes, my recent posting that offered very strong EVIDENCE that your
charge that Mason had gone insane was incorrect, has weakened the
foundation of your claim to the Guardianship, and in that sense I
understand why you might have seen it necessary to take the action
that you did in declaring me a Covenant-breaker, and in asking the
other Orthodox Baha'is to effectively "shun" me. From the beginning,
all of my work has been toward supporting and protecting the Baha'i
Faith and the Guardianship. Will you tell me what I have done to
undermine the Guardianship of the Baha'i Faith, as you have charged?
I am filled with joy that I have helped to restore Mason's good
reputation that has been soiled by forty years of your charges that
he was insane. In 1974 just after Mason made his transition to the
next world, you sent a letter of eulogy to the Orthodox Baha'is that
praised Mason as a "wondrous man [who] stood against a mighty tide of
violation, of personal vilification and abuse, [who] was an
unyielding pillar of strength to all those who rallied to the support
of the guardianship of the Faith, a majestic and venerable man of
advanced age whose indomitable courage and spiritual fortitude was
glorious to behold." How could you say such a thing while at the
same time incessantly teach people all over the world that Mason was
no longer the Guardian, proclaiming yourself instead to be the
Guardian, which hurt him very deeply? I am sure you're aware of
Mason's letter to James Meyer dated July 18, 1967 (two months after
he appointed Donald Harvey to become his successor) wherein he stated:
"Since I assumed the Guardianship of the Baha'i Faith I have
at all times made the provision for the continuation of that office
AT MY DEATH. I hear through various sources that the Friends are
being told that I am loosing my faculties and that 'someone' is
issuing statements in my name.
"Don't believe any reports such as these. Were my mind slipping
I would be the first one to retire from the Guardianship and pass it
on to my successor.
Was the Guardian referring to you Joel? Were you deeply saddened, or
angered when you read this statement in Mason's letter to James Meyer?
Let me close by quoting an appropriate statement from Guiseppe Pepe,
Mason's very best friend, from a letter that he wrote to a believer
dated April 10, 1974, only about two months after Mason's transition:
"Rex and Joel have hurt Mason deeply. It matters not that they
have hurt him as a man but the fact that they have attacked the
Guardianship does....yet they are standing up and saying beautiful
things and have made no effort to get in touch with me to find out if
Mason left any message for them? They are not the ones to suffer
spiritually for it may be God's plan to use them as instruments to
test others. The great loss is to those who follow them blindly.
Really, it would take so little brains to see through it. Anyone who
knew Mason would understand that to turn against such a person (under
any conditions) would be difficult and those who have done so for
their own selfish ends. As soon as Mason stepped in to prevent them
from achieving their personal goals, they turned against him. A
person who had no ambitions of his own would have crawled off to a
corner and hide [sic] himself in shame and if sincere, repent and ask
forgiveness....while the ones who had personal ambitions became
enraged and waited for their chance to fight back. Could anything be
simpler?
I think that you owe the Guardian, me, and the followers of
Baha'u'llah a great deal of explanation for what you have done. I
will pray that you be given greater clarity, strength and courage, so
that you can realize your mistakes, and do what needs to be done to
bring healing to our Faith.
Light and blessings to you,
Brent Madison Reed
Join the Heart of the Baha'i Faith Discussion Group. Is there legal
proof that the Baha'i Faith actually has a living Guardian who is not
known by most of the followers of Baha'u'llah? HBF is a member
supported forum for free and open
discussion and investigation about the question of the Guardianship
and the
succession of authority within the Faith.
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/heartofthebahaifaith
espe...@excite.com (Martin) wrote in message news:<535a3466.03080...@posting.google.com>...
Ross Campbell
of our conferences now that you mention it; and thanks for
the reminder. I certainly do see the similarity you discuss.
The position of kingship was considered to endure until the
death of the king. Almighty God remains "unrestrained" in His
bidding.
Ross,
If you remember at one of the conferences we attended several years
ago, we discussed the the similarities and differences (there are
many) between the mantle being passed from Saul to David, and how
David even though rightfully the new heir to Saul would not ciritize
Saul for he had been and was still for purposes of respect God's
annointed even though the annointing had clearly gone to David from
Saul.
It is in the area of how the annointing passed from Saul who was first
the King, and God's removing the mantle to David, yet Saul once the
mantle was gone did not himself realize its passing though he did grow
more depressed.
Do you see any similarities still in this with the passing of the
Ross Campbell
rossca...@shaw.ca (Ross Campbell) wrote in message news:<67eada02.03080...@posting.google.com>...
> Yes, Ian, I do remember that conversation which we had at one
> of our conferences now that you mention it; and thanks for
> the reminder. I certainly do see the similarity you discuss.
> The position of kingship was considered to endure until the
> death of the king. Almighty God remains "unconstrained" in His