ommends to get "Some Answered Questions"
out first.

The Guardian has already written to ..., asking him to reconcile himself
with your Assembly and to entirely forget this episode, which he considers
to have been due to a misunderstanding, and certainly not worth the amount
of feeling that was expended upon it on all sides. He hopes that your
Assembly will accept any overtures he and his dear Father may make, and
assist them to put the whole thing behind them, and go on with their
active service in the Cause to which we know they are both so attached at
heart.

In this connection, the Guardian would like to point out to your Assembly
that, although it is sometimes necessary to take away the voting rights of
a believer for purposes of discipline, that this prerogative of the
National Assembly should be used only in extreme cases. It is very bad for
the believers to have the feeling that their Assembly will deal too
harshly with them, and the net result can only be that a feeling of fear
or alienation or resentment may grow up in their hearts towards the body
that they should look to as being, not only their elected representatives,
but their helper,--one might almost say their father--and the one to whom
they can confidently take their problem, and whose wishes and decrees they
will respect and obey unhesitatingly.

The Guardian has never heard of any ruling by which a believer who does
not attend three consecutive 19 Day Feasts can be deprived of his voting
rights. He does not consider that such action is justifiable at all. The
whole question is whether a person considers himself a Baha'i or not, and
is willing to adhere to the principles of the Faith and accept the
authority of the Guardian and the Administration,--whether that individual
is able, or always in a condition psychologically to attend Feasts and
Baha'i meetings is an entirely different subject. If a person makes it
quite clear that they do not wish to be considered an active member of the
Baha'i Community and be affiliated with it and exert their voting right,
then their name should be removed from the voting list; but if a person
considers himself or herself a Baha'i, and for various reasons is not able
to be active in the affairs of the Community, then they should certainly
not be removed from our voting list, least of all at present, when the
number of the Baha'i Community is so small.

Our beloved Guardian regrets extremely the delay in answering