In it Baha’u'llah indicates another personage to follow Abdu’l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi:

And after the branches, for the pious servant present in front of this throne, [we have made] an elevated station

From these words from the Aqdas (Beware ye take unto yourselves more
wives than two) could help these people.

And it was made clear by that time that those who are already living a polygamous life should continued to do so.

Even to day if such polygamous family would join the faith, there no problem, they can continued to do so.

I personally believe, that the Aqdas have laid emphasis on the right to have two wives..

And tranquility with one wife come on the second plan.

But something ridiculous, when you accept the Bahai faith freely and the Bahai marriage ceremony is imposed on you with the risk that your voting right be suppressed.

I call this dictatorship.

I am right Iam wrong .
I don’t know.

Surely there is something wrong somewhere.

And thanks a lot Baquia for your reply.

I got through these texts and different person and institution have different views on the concept of Infallibility

Father said yes,Son said no, grandson said yes and then latter denied.

A simple e.g.

Shoghi effendi Denied categorically the practice of polygamy by the muslims in His letter dated 29 jan. 1939. and knew quite well that His Grandfather practiced same.

And there are several examples like that.

So, I will not further my discussion .

Thanks to every body.

Infallibility itself is a sticky wicket and usually misunderstood. Most Baha’is, to be safe, take it to the nth degree but it is in reality much more nuanced. The infallibility that Baha’u'llah claimed is quite different than that of Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi or the UHJ. As well, Shoghi Effendi made nor abrogated laws – the the Guardianship and the UHJ have two separate and distinct spheres of authority.

Personally I can’t square the flexibility that was inherently built into the Guardianship with the ossified and artificial one that we have now. But that unfortunately is the way it is and there really is no way out of it.

The role of the Guardian was to be a presence along with the UHJ. In fact, he was/is a permanent (not voted) member of the UHJ. We also have multiple references to the institutions with the plural, guardians – referring to future ones.

If you are going to take the writing of one person and treat the writing as if it were the institution itself, then we could very well take all the writing of the UHJ and say for example, we don’t need to elect the UHJ anymore! We can just refer to all of that voluminous writing we already have.

Obviously this is childish and nonsensical. The difference of course is that according to the Baha’i administrative order we can elect UHJ members whereas we can not appoint Guardians. That ship has sailed. But this is a huge topic. One that I’ve been thinking about writing for far too long.

Also, Sen would be able to help you further if you’re interested since he’s written about various parts of this discussion in his blog.

We don’t because that is exactly what has happened. The Faith, therefore, is completely dead in the water as a consequence. It is now a straight jacket and the world will now completely pass it by. There is no way out of this bind. The Divine Powers of the new unfolding World Age have going to others. As far as the Baha’i Faith is concerned, Elvis has left the building.

Did this state of infallibity is permanent during the whole ministry of the person.

As far as I know The pilgrims notes are not consider as authenticity sayings, even the notes date April 15 – 23, 1953 by Alice Dudley, approved on behalf of the Guardian, dated 30.08.1957. The Guardian himself confirmed to Winston Evans.

The Paris Talk by Abdulbaha has not been authenticated by any two central figures but yet use by Bahais as words of Abdulbaha. Which is which.??????

In Baha’u'llah’s case, this was a specific act done mostly in private with a scribe or amanuensis. You can see an example of it here.