Baha'i Administration / second International Baha'i Council / **Letters** # **Neal Chase's Opposition** ##### Letter to Believers #### **second International Baha'i Council** ##### March 7, 2004 [↓ PDF](https://leland-jensen-info.netlify.app/2004-03-07-sibc-neal-chase-opposition.pdf) *** **Greetings from the second International Baha’i Council,** We hope this letter finds you well. It has been over two years since Neal Chase opposed the sIBC and was declared a Covenant-breaker. Since then the sIBC has sent several general letters to the believers and has corresponded with numerous individuals one-on-one. The body hopes that the information enclosed in those letters was helpful and gave clarity to the situation. We had a dilemma in deciding how best to address this issue with the believers. On one hand, the claims put forth by Neal’s supporters were so patently ridiculous that they didn’t even deserve to be addressed. On the other hand, if we addressed all the points made in their bogus collections of “proofs”, it would necessitate exposing the believers to their Covenant-breaking ideas and actions. Our aim in this letter is not to revisit those subjects, but to make a few observations regarding Neal’s claim to the Guardianship. The sIBC originally addressed a personal issue between Neal and his wife that the Colorado council was not able to resolve. Neal initially tried to convince the body that the problem was personal — between himself and his wife. But this soon evolved into direct action to overthrow the sIBC and the ensuing theft of our archives, the attempt to hijack the faith, and an all out attack on the hearts and minds of the believers. Neal was not declared a Covenant-breaker because he claimed to be the guardian, but because he went against the sIBC. The initial thrust of the Covenant breaker’s argument was that procedure was not followed. The sIBC’s letter dated November 5, 2000 clearly explained that procedure was properly followed. The current belief of Neal’s followers is that Neal is the guardian (they are now saying that after beating around the bush for a long time) and therefore the sIBC cannot declare him a Covenant-breaker. They claim that as soon as any member of the body did not recognize him as the guardian, they were no longer on the body. Neal has never come to the body with his “proofs” and claims that the body has no right to review his “proofs”. This would suggest that the sIBC should allow any one who claims to be the guardian to come and sit in the meetings as the president. The rash of Covenant-breaking that occurred a few years earlier by several members of the Council was a test to see if the believers would follow the sIBC where decisions are made by the majority. A minority had a view different than the majority and went against the majority. This happened even before the body made a motion on the cause they were espousing! Very few of the believers were taken in by their actions. The test with Neal was one and the same. Neal and Victor were in the minority, and took action against the sIBC before we could even interview them concerning their situation. This test was again concerning the majority vote of the council. His believers may think that Neal is the Guardian, but that justifies none of their actions because not even the guardian can overrule the council. The believers must follow the council, not ANY individual — not even the guardian. Those who have followed Neal have failed this test. They have chosen to follow an individual rather than the council. Regretfully, a much larger number have fallen away during this test. But it will be clear for at least a thousand years that the majority vote of the council is the will of God! &nbsp; Now we will address Neal’s claim to the guardianship. Everyone knows the two part criteria for being the guardian. The guardian must be a son and must be appointed in the lifetime of the former guardian. 'Abdu-l’Baha adopted Mason according to the laws of the Ottoman Empire. Mason officially adopted Pepe in an Italian court with the legal permission of Pepe’s father. We know from 'Abdu-l’Baha that all of the rights of a son, including the kingship, can be passed on through adoption. 'Abdu-l’Baha adopted Mason Remey by refering to him as “my son” and “my dearest son” on many different recorded occasions. He also passed on to him a token (locks of hair and drops of blood of Bah’u’llah). This was a valid way of adopting in the country where he lived. In the Ottoman Empire, adoption was accomplished by publicly calling someone your son and passing a token to signify the inheritance. Those who follow Neal claim that the following quote from Dr. Lee in the *Most Mighty Document* shows that this is a universal way of adopting: > …AN ADOPTED SON HAS ALL THE RIGHTS AND PEROGATIVES OF A NATURAL SON \[capitalized in the *Most Mighty Document*] … Not only did the Christians uphold the adoption principle for the Messiahship as in the Joseph-Jesus instance, but 'Abdu'l-Baha upheld it in His *Last Tablet to America;* this principle has been upheld all the way back into antiquity and all the way down to our present times by peoples, kindreds and governments. It is a universal principle. In Neal’s use of this quote, he did not include the capitalized section. If you read the whole quote correctly, what it saying is that it is a universal principle that the adopted son has all of the rights of a natural born son. It clearly does not say that calling a person “son” and “passing a token” is a universal method of adoption. Joseph did not adopt Jesus by calling Him “Son” and “passing a token”. Even if this were a universal method of adoption, Neal’s claims would still not be valid because neither of these two criteria were met by Neal. Neal claims that he was adopted by Pepe because of the following in a letter from Pepe where he calls Neal “my dear boy”: > Dear Neal <u>"My dear Boy"</u> > My purpose is to BOMBARD you & your EDUCATOR with a dose of <u>your own</u> Medicine. > Pepe > > (Joseph Pepe Remey to Neal Chase, October 5, 1991) There are two reasons why this is not an adoption. The first is that it is clear from the tone of the letter that Pepe was not calling Neal his “son.” He was mocking Neal. This was not a term of endearment. Secondly, even if you read into this that Pepe wanted Neal to actually be his son, this is not a valid form of adoption in either Italy (where Pepe was) or in the United States (where Neal was). When Doc was alive he reinforced the Baha’i writings on the requirement that Baha’is follow the laws of the land in which they live. Dr. Jensen wrote that in order for an adoption to be valid it had to be done according to the law. One of the teachings of the Baha’i faith is that we must follow the laws of the land unless they are contrary to Baha’i teachings. Shoghi Effendi tells us: >…and be obedient to the Government in power in the place where we reside… > >(Shoghi Effendi, *Directives From the Guardian*, pp. 57–58) Danny Scherr had this same thought of being the guardian when Pepe referred to him as “my dear boy.” Dr. Lee came unglued when Danny brought forth the idea he might be the guardian because Pepe had “adopted” him. Neal claims that Pepe appointed him by giving him a lapis ring. This is patently false. Here is how the ring came to be in Neal’s possession. After Pepe passed away, his belongings were sent to his sister Anna in New Jersey. Dr. Lee was very interested in finding out if any of Pepe’s possessions held clues as to who the next guardian might be as well as guarding any other items that might be of interest to the Faith. Neal and Wind went to New Jersey to see if they could at least look through the items sent to Anna. As it turned out, Anna was not interested in Pepe’s stuff and allowed Neal and Wind to take a large box of things. One very important thing was the hair and drops of blood that 'Abdu-l’Baha had given to Mason Remey. Neal also saw a lapis ring that Pepe had given Anna. He expressed an interest in the ring and Anna gave it to him. It was not given to him by Pepe nor was it left to him by Pepe. It was given to him by Anna because he expressed an interest in it. Our understanding is that receiving this ring is what Neal is saying is his appointment. There is no stretch of the imagination that can be made that would acknowledge that Neal having this ring could be an appointment by Pepe. It is also our understanding that Neal does not even possess the ring at this time, Wind has it. Neal had a mental breakdown on the trip back from New Jersey. When he got back to Missoula, he expressed dismay at having thoughts that he might be the guardian and gave this same information to LaVonne Howell and Jerome Hellman and asked them to disprove that he was the guardian. They went through the letters Pepe had sent to Neal, made notes about the ring, and even notes about Neal’s geneology. LaVonne says: “I said to Doc that I had thought that Neal was the guardian and Doc looked at me and said that he had hoped that Neal was the guardian too, but he wasn't — end of discussion about Neal being the guardian.” At a subsequent forum after Neal’s return from New York, Dr. Lee railed on the problem of wanna-be-ism. This talk obviously did not deter Neal from continuing his delusion. Any time he seemed to be having some mental difficulties, this delusion would come back to haunt him. The trauma from 9/11 apparently sent him into a mental state where he could not reason the delusion away and instead begin building on it. Pointing out that Neal may have a mental problem in no way affects his being or not being the guardian. If he is the guardian and has a mental problem, he is still the guardian. What it does do is offer a reasonable explanation as to why someone who was so well versed in the faith would take such a turn away from the light. We have heard other “proofs” that the Nealites have offered but we will not address them here. There is no need to because there are only two criteria given by the Will and Testament for the guardian and Neal fulfills neither one. As always, if any of you have any questions, do not hesitate for a moment to contact the sIBC. **The second International Baha’i Council** &nbsp; *** **Document Details** - **Type:** Letter - **Date:** March 7, 2004 - **Author:** second International Baha'i Council - **Recipient:** Mailing list of the second International Baha'i Council. - **Length:** 6 pages (estimated). - **Enclosures:** None. - **Purpose:** Addressing Neal Chase's opposition to the sIBC, his designation as a Covenant-breaker and his invalid claim to the guardianship. - **Summary Note:** A historical explanation of sIBC procedure, the situation with Neal Chase, his opposition,2004-03-07-sibc and some of the details behind his claim to the guardianship. - **Editorial Note:** Citation formatting updated. **Archive Classification** - **Collection:** Baha'i Administration → Second International Baha'i Council → Letters - **Period:** Post 9/11. **Reference Information** - **Permanent Link:** https://leland-jensen.info/second-international-bahai-council/2004-03-07-sibc-neal-chase-opposition/ - **Archive Home:** https://leland-jensen.info - **Download PDF:** [2004-03-07-sibc-neal-chase-opposition.pdf](https://leland-jensen-info.netlify.app/2004-03-07-sibc-neal-chase-opposition.pdf) - **Citation (Chicago Style):** Second International Baha'i Council, "Letter to Believers Concerning Neal Chase's Opposition to the Second International Baha'i Council." Unpublished letter. Missoula, MT, March 7, 2004. Originally distributed to the Second International Baha'i Council mailing list; subsequently circulated among believers and students. Leland Jensen Archive. Accessed \[Month, Day, Year]. https://leland-jensen.info/second-international-bahai-council/2004-03-07-sibc-neal-chase-opposition/ - **Archive Home:** https://leland-jensen.info - **Last Updated:** 20 May 2026 - **Revision Notes:** Initial posting of Document Details. *** [Site Guide](site%20guide.md)&nbsp; | &nbsp; [Sitemap](sitemap.md)&nbsp; | &nbsp; [Downloads](downloads.md)&nbsp; | &nbsp;[Contact Us](contact%20us.md) **Dr. Leland Jensen**: Teachings and Commentaries Archive © 2026 Baha'i Council of Dane County, all rights reserved. &nbsp;[Copyright & Usage Policy](copyright.md) ***