The basic concept that is at stake in the dispute between conservative/ fundamentalist and liberal/ reform-oriented Bahais is what the Haifan tradition calls "the Covenant" - the idea that Bahaullah supposedly intended to found a religion led by infallible successors and a religious "Administrative Order" claiming to be perfect, free from error, and forbidden to be challenged on any issue. Any Bahai who has ever argued that this was not the true intention of Bahaullah for the Bahai faith - that he really meant for his religion to evolve in a more free-spirited fashion and for its leaders to be more humble in their claims - has either intentionally or unintentionally been supporting the position first articulated by the man whom Haifan Bahais consider the "Arch-breaker of the Covenant": Mirza Muhammad Ali, Ghusn-i-Akbar. It may be useful for this reality to be openly discussed, so that everyone involved in Bahaism will know where they really stand and act accordingly with boldness and conviction.
Covenants work like this: they exclude. In effect, Anglicans supporting the Covenant are supporting the concept of Covenant Breakers.
Ghusn-i-Akbar's or Muhammad Ali's group were called 'The Unitarians' on the basis (I understand - this may be incomplete) that they were People of the Book. Isn't that interesting - that they achieved this title based on a scriptural principle (regarding Bahaullah's writings) rather than having absolute authority in the next leader, on a sort of Shia Islam/ papal principle. Early Unitarians were also people of the Bible, that they read it straight up and could not find the doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible, or indeed an expressly evangelical view of atonement as doctrine. Not that this bothers most Unitarians now, whose view of faith is more about difference together and acts as a gospel of getting on in the world.