Thanks, I would never have read about them without you bringing them up. Now the problem is... Which Baha'i group is telling the truth?
No, that is not what is being asked. What do you think about the teachings and beliefs of the Free-Baha'is?
Yes, that is exactly right. All you have to do is read what the Free Baha'is believe, and the problem becomes obvious. Here's from the link...
Lady Ruth and Hermann Zimmer through divine guidance came to the conclusion that the position of Guardianship which Shoghi Effendi, grandson of Abdu’l Baha, claimed for himself was based on a fraudulent Will of Abdu’l Baha. Shoghi Effendi changed world’s most unpolitical religion into a political religion, ignoring the sayings of Abdu’l-Baha that “This religion could not be compressed into an Organisation. Shoghi built up an administration where the spirit of the Religion of Baha’u’llah and Abdu’l-Baha was completely missing. He became for himself a world dictator and a power hungry person who excommunicated all the members of the Abdu’l Baha’s family including his own parents.
It was after the death of Abdul Baha, that his Will was read initially only to few ‘old and recognised Baha’is’. Later it was made public after a few years. In the alleged Will of Abdul Baha, Shoghi Effendi was anointed as the Guardian of the cause. The announcement of Shoghi as the Guardian came as a shock to many Baha’is who doubted the veracity and authenticity of his appointment. This was because Abdul Baha never introduced Shoghi as his successor during his lifetime.
However, nobody dared to question the authenticity of the alleged Will, lest they be excommunicated, except for Lady Ruth White.
The link also talks about the "New History Society".
Mirza Ahmad Sohrab, a Persian-American author and a renowned Baha’i who served as a secretary and interpreter from 1912 to 1919 along with
Lewis Chanler and his wife
Julia formed the New History Society in 1929, in order to spread the teachings of the Baha’i faith. It was their independent effort to teach the principles of the Cause.
It says...
Rabindranath Tagore from India addressed the New History Society" Then, "Within a week of Mr. Tagore’s significant meeting,
Albert Einstein addressed our group from the same platform. The New History Society was brought to the attention of the whole country.
Shortly after this, Professor
John Dewey addressed the Society followed by Count Ilya Tolstoy, who gave a couple of lectures stretched over a few weeks. So, it went on and on with great speakers, great crowds...
Looking at the gaining popularity of the Society, affairs in the Baha’i world neared the boiling point. The National Assembly thus wanted to settle the matter once and for all. Ahmad Sohrab was instructed to appear before the Local Board. Ahmad refused to appear. He knew he would be forced to accept uncompromising and unquestioning obedience and subservience to Shoghi Effendi, which he was not ready to comply.
Baha’i authorities wanted to destroy the new-born movement. Even if Ahmad Sohrab would have appeared in front of the Local Board, they would have ordered him to shut the Society. Just that they would not have expelled him from the faith.
Ahmad Sohrab was excommunicated by the National Assembly and Shoghi Effendi.
All interesting things, but it has nothing good to say about Shoghi Effendi, in fact it says some pretty gross things about him. And that's why those Baha'is got the boot and formed their own group.