Let me make second comment on your post that makes a point I hold that these 'very liberal' Baha'is should not really consider themselves Baha'is in the first place. They may be admirers of some Baha'i teachings and writings but they are not and should never have become Baha'is. Let me quote from a letter from Stephen Birkland (then a member of the Continental Board of Counsellors in the Americas and now a member of the Universal House of Justice)To me, there was a clear division between some very conservative Baha'is and some very liberal Baha'is. The one tended to be in positions of power and tended to be strict rules and covenant followers. The others broke rules right and left but could get along with just about anybody from the other religions. So, at the higher levels, would any of these liberal Baha'is ever get elected or appointed to positions of power?
the basic requirements for Baha'i membership set out by the Guardian:
"Full recognition of the station of the Forerunner, the Author, and the Ture Exemplar of the Baha'i Cause, as set forth in Abdu'l-Baha's Testament; unreserved acceptance of, and submission to, whatsoever has been revealed by their Pen; loyal and steadfast adherence to every clause of our Beloved's sacred Will; and close association with the spirit as well as the form of the present day Baha'i administration throughout the world--these I conceive to be the fundamental and primary considerations that must be fairly, discreetly and thoughtfully ascertained before reaching such a vital decision."
Source Link