in the Light of the Baha'i Teachings

by Aenon E. Moss
NOTICE: The following article is NOT an official Baha'i statement, but contains the personal views an opinions of one Believer. This article is not copyrighted. Please make copies for others.

In 1984 I was a missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly known as "The Mormon Church") in San Franciso California. Being a missionary is like being a travel-teacher, but much more strict. While walking with my missionary companion (we must go by two's) down Market Street in San Francisco, I noticed a sign "Baha'i Center". I remembered studying the Baha'i Faith somewhat back in 1981-82 in Los Angeles when I was a security patrolman. An area I patrolled included the old L.A. Baha'i Center on Pico Blvd in the Whilshire District. I would stop by during many lunch periods to read books and chat with a few Believers.

Anyway, the Baha'i librarian said, "Tomorrow we're having a guest speaker at our Fireside, and we're going to be serving some Swedish meatballs, you boys out to come out! We'd love to have you!"

I loved Swedish meetballs, and I was into listening what this guest speaker had to say. I was curious about all religions, so I looked at my companion (a Mauri from New Zealand), and said, "Wanna go?" and he said, "Sure, why not?" So, we came to the Fireside, but we were late (we had to take buses and streetcars--hard to judge time), and the speaker was in the back finishing up. We decided not go to in, but the Swedish meatballs where served, and I fit as many as I could into my mouth. I said to my companion, "Try some!" but he said, "No, I don't feel right, It's not our church! It's not our food." I said, "Look, THEY INVITED US HERE! We are their GUESTS! Try some!" But again he refused.

Then, as I was muching on a Swedish meatball, the meeing in the back concluded and a blonde Baha'i woman about 45ish came out, looked at our name-tages and said, "What does Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints mean?" I said, "It's the official name for the Mormon Church!" The women's eyes BULGED out and she SCREAMED at the top of her lungs (I "kid" you not):

"OH MY GOD!!! MORMONS!????? YOU ARE RAAAAAAAAAAAAAACiiiiiiiiits! Raaaaaaaaaaaaciiiiiiiiiiisssst!? OH MY GOD!!!! OH MY GOD!!! RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiissssstttss! OH MY GOD....!!! GET __OUT__ OF HERE! OH MY GOD!!! What are YOU racists DOING HERE??? OH MY GOD!!! MY GOD!!!!..."
My companion and I were in total shock! The woman started screaming again incoherently, until a man came out from the back and touched her on her shoulder. I said to myself, "Thank God...a voice of reason!" The man is a very popular Baha'i teacher from New England who has authored some books. He looked at me and said, "What are you doing here?" I said, "We were invited here!" He replied: "HOW DARE YOU come in here and eat our food! You were NEVER invited in here! You're LYING...nobody invited you here!"

I looked at the librarian who invited us. Her eyes bulged, and she quickly turned and walked swifty away back into her tiny office without defending me or explaining it was SHE who invited us.

Needless to say, we both left. My companion, who was a Mauri from New Zealand said, "Man! Those Baha'is are INSANE! They are the MOST INSANE people I've ever seen! I'm NEVER gonna speak to any of them again!"

I completed my mission for the Church, then went home. I then began to study anti-Mormon books, and soon decided I wanted to write a book defending the Church against anti-Mormon attacks. That book was eventually published, and it sold in Mormon bookstores for many years.

Believe it or not, in 1994, I declared myself a Baha'i in Riverside, California! Why? Because Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church, prophesied that the "Son of Man" would come "in red apparel" in the year 1891 (Doctrine & Covenatns 130:15). I spent years as a Mormon apologists (defender of the Church against anti-Mormon attacks) trying to find a "fulfillment" of that prophecy; knowing that if it wasn't fulfilled, then Joseph Smith must be dismissed at a false prophet.

I remember reading that after His return from Kurdistan in 1863, one of the wives of Baha'u'llah made for Him a glorious robe out of red Tirmih (red Persian cloth). I remembered reading that in 1891, Baha'u'llah climbed Mount Carmel and recited the Tablet of Carmel; His general announcement to the world-at-large that He was the Promised One. I remember that He called Himself "the Son of Man".

So, eventually, to retain my belief that Joseph Smith was inspired of God, I literally "had" to accept Baha'u'llah. It was either that, or dismiss Joseph Smith as a fraud, and I wasn't prepared to do that.

Baha'is told me, "Oh, Joseph Smith was not a Prophet, so he never prophesied of Baha'u'llah!" That confused me for quite some time. I considered leaving the Faith, but then I discovered that Shoghi Effendi had told a number of Baha'i pilgrims that Joseph Smith was not a Prophet but a "Seer" who "had high standards". Now, I did not at the time know what a "Seer" was, but a fraud cannot have "high standards". More research led me to see that in Islaaam (and the Baha'i Faith) there are two types of Revelators: Prophets and Seers. Prophets are Infallible Men. Seers are fallible humans; both men and women. Shaykh Ahmad-i-Ahsa'i was one such "Seer". He had visions of Muhammad and angels, but he was not a Prophet lesser or otherwise.

Not long afterwards, I met a man named Richard André at a Unit conference, and we spoke. I told him my story, and he told me to share it in a Fireside he would give at his home in Ontario California.

I went over and met his wife, who is Afro-Brazilian, and their children. I gave the Fireside. At the Firesdie there were three black Baha'is: an older woman (about 65), a younger woman (30), and a black man (30). The black man would not come out of the kitchen. I leanred later that he would not come out because "Mormons hate black folks" (a false rumor popular in the African-American community at the time). I gave my talk in front of about 6 people; all of them Baha'is.

After my talk, the two black women began to ask me questions such as:

"Why don't Mormons like black folks?"

"Why do Mormons HATE black people anyway?"

"Why do Mormons teach that black folks are the children of the Devil?"

I knew, of course, that these were false rumors in the Black community. I experienced them before. They are as accurate as: "Baha'is spy for Israel" and "Baha'is have orgies" and other things one hears from the Anti-Baha'i Society in Iran. Totally, absolutely FALSE. Lies....spread over and over again, and believed because they are heard all the time.

I explained to them that Mormons do not hate black people and that I knew quite a few black Mormons, there have been black Mormons since 1832, etc. The older woman said, "But....WHY do Mormons HATE US?"

I repeated what I had just told her before. She asked again, "But WHY do Mormons hate us?"

I could not believe the unremitting ignorance of that woman, but I held my tongue.

The younger black woman said, "Ok, but black Mormons couldn't become Elders right? Why is that?"

I then explained to her the Curse of Cain Doctrine, which was taught by Mormon leaders from 1848 until 1978. They taught:

*Cain killed Abel. As punishment, the LORD decreed that Cain and his descendants could not hold God's Authority (priesthood) until the Curse of Cain was removed by the LORD, and this happened on June 8th 1978.

*Ham, the son of Noah, married Egyptus, a Cainite woman, and they had a son named Canaan; and their descendants became the Canaanites.

*Canaan's sons Phut (Poot) and Cush migrated into black Africa, which is why many black African tribes had the blood of Canaan (and Cain) in them.

*Many black Africans have the blood of Cain in them, and they cannot hold the Priesthood because of the "Curse of Cain".

*The President of the Mormon Church asked the LORD to remove the curse of Cain in 1978, this was done, and now there are hundreds of thousands of black Mormons, all males can hold the priesthood.

My Baha'i listeners were in SHOCK! Several of them left to go into the kitchen. The younger black woman said, "Well, the Baha'i Faith teaches that God would NEVER curse anyone! There are no Divine Curses in the Baha'i Faith!"

The older woman said, "WHY would any black person want to join a RACIST religion?"

I said, "Well, both the Bab and Baha'u'llah owned black slaves, so....."

Immediately I was accursed of being a "LIAR". The older black Baha'i woman said, "If you were in my neighborhood, teaching that racist crap, you wouldn't get very far!"

I then told the story of when I first joined the Church, while in Marine bootcamp. There were Southern whites saying the "N" word everywhere, and the black Marines left them alone. But I joined the Mormon Church--knowing nothing that blacks perceived it as racist. My Mormon bishop told me to "Be a service" to other Marines, and then invite them to Mormon services. I knew nothing about the Curse of Cain Doctrine at that time.

One Sunday, in bootcamp, I asked a group of black Marine recruits if I could do their chores for them. They looked at my like I was crazy, but said "Go ahead!" I mopped for them. One said, "This white boy has never held a mop in his life!" I replied, "That's not true, I worked as busboy for years!" I then say, "Hey, would you guys like to come to a Mormon Church service this afternoon?" They all looked IN SHOCK, and one said, "You BETTER get out of here!"

I didn't know what I had done wrong. I showed them utter respect! Did them a favor. I was unaware that African-Americans perceived Mormons as "racist" and "worse than the Klan" (both BIG LIES).

Anyway, later, I was shinning my boots on my foot-locker, and two of three of the black recuites came up from behind me, draped a towel around my head, and beat and kicked me so severly that it caused one of my testicals to tear out. I was motionless for an hour, and it took many years for me to recover. I was in tremendous pain for years. Many years.

What had I done? Had I shown him nothing but absolute respect? Some other white recruits from the South were using the "N" word all the time, in front of these black recruits, but the black recruits did nothing! Nothing! I was the one being "punished" for helping them, and showing them utter respect, and because in the African-American Community "false rumors" about Mormons spread like wild-fire; horrendous lies and exaggerations and inaccuracies only the most ignorant would believe.

The reason why I was attacked is because the black recruits wanted to "kill" the Southern whites for disrepecting them, but, they knew if they attacked one Southern white, then the other Southern whites would retaliate. So, I was attacked. They interpreted my "niceness" as weakness. I did not "hang" with the Southern whites, so they knew there would not no reprisals.

I respected them, they saw it as "weakness" so they decided to punish me for the disrespect other whites had shown them!

In many Ghettos, especially in the early 1970s, there was great anti-White feelings. It was "whites" who enslaved them, they were told (actually--black chiefs sold their black slaves to white men). All whites were equally "liable" for what a relative few white men did. Therefore, these black men saw nothing wrong with attacking me, even though I'd shown them utter respect! I was "white" and an easy target! Basically, I was like a Jew who haded a group of Nazis a flower saying: "I want to be your friend". Instead of the Nazis saying, "Gee, ok, let's be friends!" they beat the Jew and then shipped him off to Bergenwald.

The point of my story was this: in the 1970s Mormons were no more "racist" than another other white American. False rumors in the African-American Community portrayed Mormons as "worse than the klan" etc. All lies. All "false". To punish "me" because of false rumors, and the disrespect other whites showed them, was nothing but animalistic. The behavior of those black recruits who attacked me reminds me of what 'Abdu'l-Baha once purportedly said:

"It is, therefore, certain that sins such as anger, jealousy, dispute, coventouness, avarice, ignorance, prejudice, hatred, pride, and tyranny exist in the physical world. All these brutal qualities exist in the nature of man. A man who had not had a spirutal education is a brute. Like the savages of Africa, whose actions, habits and morals are purely sensual, they act according to the demands of nature to such a degree that they rent and eat one another." (Some Answered Questions 29:5)

"As ignorance is the cause of crimes, the more knowledge and science increases, the more crimes will diminish. Consider how often murder occurs among the barbarians of Africa; they even kill one another to eat each other's flesh and blood!" (Some Answered Questions 77:13)

"If a child is left in its natural state and deprived of education, there is no doubt that it will grow up in ignorance and illiteracy, its mental faculties dulled and dimmed; in fact, it will become like an animal. This is evident among the savages of central African, who are scarcely higher than the beast in mental development." (The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p.311)

I'm sorry, but the men who beat me, after I had tried to be a service to them, and shown them utter respect, fit 'Abdu'l-Baha's depiction above.

In any case, I told this story at the Baha'i Fireside, of how I was beaten and kicked so severely my left testical was torn out, and it took me years to recover. The "point" of my story was this:

*That the false rumors that Mormons "hated black people" and believed that "black people were the Devil's children" (both widely believed by the African-American Community then--less so today) were false.

*That to punish someone because of "false rumors" is even MORE false.

Did the Baha'is that I spoke with understand my points?


When I finished telling my story of how I was beaten and kicked so severly it took years to recover, the older black woman looked at me and said, "Well, CAN YOU BLAME THEM?"

I was in COMPLETE SHOCK! For her to tell me that, would be like a black man telling me how the Klan tarred and feathered him, raped his wife, killed his children, merely because he was black and they "thought" he was in the wrong area, and then me saying, "Well, CAN YOU BLAME THEM?"

I was so distraut I was SPEECHLESS! It was all I could do to tell the André's I would see them later. I left. The comments of that old black Baha'i woman had left me physically ill. The trauma of the event returned. On my way back home, I had to pull my car to the side of the road twice to throw up.

Over the years, I've noticed how a good number of Baha'is, both black and white, seem to think that all white people should share the "guilt" for the African slave trade, slavery, the Jim Crow laws, and the terrorists acts of the Ku Klux Klan. Several black Baha'is have told me that, and a number of white Baha'is seem to agree. But, I could never understand how "all white people" should be responsibility (moral or otherwise) for the actions of others.

What Baha'is showed me that evening was:

1) Ignorance.
2) Pre-judice. This means to "pre-judge". They "assumed" I was/had been a racist because I was a Mormon. They "assumed" that all Mormons were racist, based upon false rumors they had been told.
3) Violating the Golden Rule. Even if I "was" racist, Baha'is are not to give evil for evil, but good for evil. Instead, the old woman gave me evil for good.

The African-American community was (and still is) full of false rumors about Mormons.

Q. Well, I've heard from many people that Mormons are racist. Is this not true? How could so many people be wrong?

How could 60 million Iranians, who believe that Baha'is are immoral, spying for Israel, and wish to destroy Islaam. How can they ALL be wrong?

The vast great majority of white Mormons today (98%) are NOT "racist" in any way, shape or form. The racial attitude of Mormons in the 1800s, and the early 1900s, was exactly the same as it was for most Americans at that time; a moderately racist one.

Here are some facts:

1) Mormons did not enslave black people. Christians and Arabs (and yes---until the 1890s--Baha'is) did that.

2) Mormons were not behind the KKK; in fact, the Deseret News (owned by the Church) was always anti-KKK, and the KKK called the Mormon Church "one of our chief enemies" in the 1920s.

3) Joseph Smith was a great advocate for the rights of black people; calling for the end to slavery, and the educating and granting of equal rights, in 1843.

4) Mormons were not behind the Jim Crow laws of the South (and other places); so called "Christians" were.

5) Mormons never "segregated" black people in their churches; as just about all other churches did during the same time period.

6) Black people have always been Mormons. The worst thing the Mormon Church ever did to black people was the Priesthood-Ban; to deny black males the Mormon Priesthood, and all black the Ordinances of Mormon Temples (the equivolent of a Baha'i Pilgrimage) from 1848 until 1978. The Church did this because of the Curse of Cain Doctrine.

Anyway, the point is, the old black "Baha'i" woman listened to NONE of this--insinuating I was "lying" because she knew the "truth" (i.e. the false rumors in the African-American Community).

Jesus said "Do not judge!" He did not mean "Do not condemn wicked behavior". Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek. Look at the Aramaic Bible, and Jesus says: "Do not be presumptious". The black Baha'is I spoke with that day were presumptions. They presumed a lie.

Baha'u'llah taught His followers NOT to spread rumors; because they can often be "false". The rumors in the African-American Community that "Mormons hate white folks" and "Mormons are worse than the Klan" are absolutely OUTRAGIOUS ___LIES____! Yet, some Baha'is (black and white) continue to spread them; in violation of the Laws of Baha'u'llah.

The white woman who screamed at me and my companion from New Zealand, believed a lie and violated Baha'i Principles; as did the famous Baha'i teacher who told me we had NOT been invited to the Fireside (we in fact HAD BEEN by the Baha'i librarian).

Q. The Mormon Church denied its Priesthood and access to its Temples to black people for 130 years. Is this not RACIST?

"Racism" is the belief that one's own race is "superior" to others. The Mormon Church banned all "Canaanites" (of whatever skin-color) not because of racism (most Mormon leaders were "racist"--but so were 98% of white Americans in their day), but because they believed that God had placed a Divine Curse upon the lineage (bloodline) of Canaan that only the LORD could remove via Divine Revleation to the President of the Church.

In other words, Cain killed Abel, so God "cursed" Cain with a denial of the Priesthood, the Ground would not yield fruit for him, and he would be a wanderer on the Earth. Ham, son of Noah, married a Cainite woman, in violation of a divine Law, and their son was Canaan. Noah cursed Canaan (meaning Canaan and his descendants) to be "servants of servants".

Mormon leaders believed that "Negroes" were "Canaanites" (the descendants of Canaan--and of Cain), so they were "banned" from the Mormon Priesthood (which all Mormon men hold) and Mormon Temples (where rites of Godhood and Eternal Marriage are performed) until the "Curse" was removed.

Again, the ban was not imposed because of "racism" (the belief that whites are superior) but because Mormon leaders believed that "Negroes" were "Canaanites" and under the "Curse of Canaaan".

Q. But, again, isn't the belief that one bloodline (such as that of Canaan) is under a "Divine Curse" itself RACIST?

No, and here is my proof:

According to Baha'u'llah, the Torah (five books of Moses) were penned by Moses; Whom Baha'is believe is a Manifestation of God, and thus has an "Infallible Pen". In this article I will discuss the Curse of Canaan in the light of Baha'i Teachings.

The Curse of Canaan is a very old Jewish belief that the Canaanites (the aboriginal inhabitants of the Holy Land and Lebanon) were under a "curse" pronounced upon their ancestor, Canaan son of Ham son of Noah, many thousands of years ago. Here is what Moses wrote:

"Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, he said, "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers." He also said, "Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be his slave. (Gen. 9:20-27)
Most Baha'is are shocked when they first read this. How can a Manifestation of God pronounce a "curse" upon anyone? How could a Manifestation of God pronounce a "curse" upon the "son" of the offender (Ham), and such a curse would also be upon all the descendants of Ham's son Canaan? Why not just "curse" Ham is someone has to be "cursed"? Why his son Canaan and all his descendants?

Baha'is are perplexed, and, as with all other things that perplex them, they ask themselves, "What does this have to do with World Peace?" then simply forget about it; never thinking or discussing it again.

My view is that the Torah is a Revelation of God that teaches us eternal truths. We should try to understand it instead of ignoring it.

Q. How can a Manifestation of God pronounce a curse upon anyone, much less a people?

A. We see dozens of examples in the Bible and Qu'ran that God places "curses" upon individuals, cities, and nations. Nobody can read these books without acknowledging that!

The first "curse of God" is upon Adam and his descendants; to no more live "easy" by picking fruit, but to earn their bread via the sweat of the brow. Then Eve and her descendants are "cursed" to bear children in great sorrow and suffering. There is no doubt human women suffer more than animals in child-birth.

Then we read the story of Cain and Abel. Cain is jealous of Abel, and kills him; because the LORD accepts Abel's offering but not Cain's offering. So Cain kills his brother, and tries to hide the crime. So, the Torah says, the LORD cursed Cain to be:

*A wanderer
*The ground would not produce fruit for him.
Cain says he can't bear it, and if he is found he will be killed. So the LORD puts a "mark" upon Cain. The Bible doesn't say what the mark is. But the LORD says that if anyone should kill Cain, then Cain will be avenged seven-fold.

Some churches, like the Mormon Church, used to teach that the mark of Cain was a black skin and negroid features (the Mormon Church no longer teaches this, and, in fact, officially denies it ever taught this--a lie!).

Most Baha'is wil schoff at this; calling it a "myth" or "mere parable" (of what--they don't know, and, don't seem to care---"What does this have to do with World Peace?").

In any case, there is a tribe of wandering blacksmiths in Saudi Arabia and Yemem called the QAYIN (Arabic: "Cain"). They are also known as the "Sleb" (Arabic: "Mark") because they have a mark in the shape of an "X" on the forehead of each male; a "sign" that if he is killed, seven other sleb will avenge his death.

The Qayin will admit to you that they don't farm, because nothing grows for them. They will admit they are the descendant of Qayin, their ancestor, the firstborn son of Adam. They will admit all of this. They are not black-skinned. They are not Negroes, but Arab Semites like the other Arabs around them. They earn their living in blacksmithing, and in fact QAYIN means "blacksmith" in Arabic.

Seven Qayin men and one Qayin woman (c.1920)

His Holiness Moses wrote:

1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.
2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.
4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his coffering:
5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
6 And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be aaccepted? and if thou bdoest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
9 ¶ And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s bkeeper?
10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.
11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand;
12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
13 And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
15 And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
16 ¶ And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. (Genesis chapter 4)
We find, even today, the Sleb of Arabia, who call themselves the "Qayin" (Arabic and Hebrew: "Cain"). They are wandering blacksmiths. The ground does not bear fruit for them (they do not farm). They have a sleb (Arabic: "mark") on their foreheads; if one Sleb is killed, then seven avenge his death.

Has this not The Curse of Cain been fulfilled to the letter in the Qayin (Sleb)?

The Curse of Cain (Qayin) is a reality! It is not "myth" nor "mere parable".

The LORD, in the time of Adam and Eve, pronounced a curse upon Qayin (Cain) that he would wander the "land" and the ground would not yeild fruit for him, and the LORD provided a "mark" of protection; that if anyone killed him he would be avenged seven-fold.

Q. Did Noah really exist?

Most Baha'is would deny that Noah really existed at all, but the Flood Story is "myth" or "mere parable". In other words, the Ark was Noah's Faith, and all who did not "board the Ark" were "lost" in doubt, etc.

But there is nothing in the Holy Writings or Pilgrim's Notes to suggest that Noah did not exist.

Was there a literal flood?

About 2800 B.C., a comet hit the Indian Ocean 400 miles east of Madagascar, and sent trillions of tons of water-vapor into the stratosphere; which came down as rain and/or snow in all parts of the world. This ws the end of the Mammoths and other "giant" animals that existed at the time. That is why there are flood stories in every ancient culture.

This "Great Flood" did not send the water past Mount Everest (as Fundamentalists believe), but it caused flooding everywhere! All the lowlands were flooded. The ancient Nile Valley was flooded. The ancient Sumerian cities were flooded (this is proved). All the low-lands were flooded, and even the highlands experienced heavy rains or snows for many weeks. A significant percentage of humans and animals died about 2800 B.C. because of the comet. This is a fact.

Archaeologists know that the Ephrates and Tigris flooded by 35 feet (15 cubits) the very height Genesis said the flood-waters prevailed. But, this is for another article.

According to Genesis, Noah was a "husbandman" (grape-wive grower), and had gotten drunk on wine, when Ham "uncovered" his nakedness. Enraged, Noah coused Canaan to be a "servant of servants" to his brothers Shem and Japheth.

Q. How can a Manifestation of God get drunk?

It says Noah got drunk on the wine and fell asleep. Technically, getting drunk was not a "sin" in Noah's day. It was not against the Law of God from what we know; since Noah grew grapes and produced fermented wine. Wine had to be fermented (contain alcohol) or it would go bad very fast. The alcohol in wine killed bacteria, and if there was no alcohol in the wine then it would go back after one day or sooner! In order to sell it and distribute the wine, it had to contain alcohol or it would be infested with bacteria in no time and thus useless for human consumption. Good clean water was rare for most people, so, it was better for them to drink wine, with alcohol, than to drink most water which would cause them and their children to get diseases. Makes sense.

Q. Why would a Manifestation of God "curse" an entire race of people for what their ancestor (Ham) did?

Shoghi Effendi said (in Pilgrim's Notes) that the Jews were "cursed" with suffering for 2,000 years because they persecuted Christ, and that the Muslims would suffer more because they persecuted The Báb and Baha'u'llah for many more than three years.

So, yes, the descendants of a man or group of men who persecute, mock, belittle, or humiliate a Manifestation of God are under the "curse of God" and not only themselves, but their children and their children's children, and so on, until God removes the curse.

Look at the "Curse of Cain" upon the Qayin/Sleb of Saudi Arabia and Yemen. The curse is still upon them! They cannot farm, because the ground does not yield fruit to them. They "wander" the "eretz" (land) as blacksmiths. They are "outcasts" even among the wandering Bedouins.

Q. Who are the Canaanites?

The Canaanites are the descendant of Canaan, the son of Ham, the son of Noah.

In the Torah, Canaan is called the father of Mizraim, Cush, and Phut ("Poot"). Most scholars identify Mizraim with Egypt, Cush with Sudan, and Put with Ethiopia/Somalia.

Does that mean the Canaanites were Negroes? No.

The Canaanites were a race of Hamites (closely related to the Semites). They still exist today. They can be found in Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, Yemen, Eritrea, Ethiopia, as the Berbers of North Africa, Somalia, and throughout black Africa as the Afro-Hamitic tribes.

Some black African tribes are known as "Hamitic"; because they speak languages which are part-native-African (Bantu) and part "Hamitic" (related to that spoken in ancient Canaan). An example of this was the Rwandan war; in which the Hutu tribe (Bantu) attacked the Tootsie tribe (Hamitic); killing about 500,000 to a million Tutsies.

Rwanda is made up of three ethnic groups:


Left to right: Tutsi, Hutu, and Twa
The Tutsies were a wandering tribe that herded cattle, and the Hutus were farmers. The Twa are a combination of Hutus and an old Pygmie race. They are stone-age hunter-gatherers. It is said that that Tutsies could not farm; the ground would not yield fruit to them. So, when the Belgians conquered Rwanda, they gave the government and skilled jobs and responsibilities to the Tutsies; because the Tutsies were lighter-skinned than the Hutus, and the Tutsies could not farm anyway. This created great resentment for the Hutus; which eventually exploded.

According to the Hutus and Twas, the Tutsies treated them horribly; being very brutal and tyrannical until the Hutus and Twa decided to get some "payback". The Tutsies are Afro-Hamitic; meaning they are a combination of Bantus (native Africans) and Cushites (Adamic Hamites) that entered Africa from Yemen thousands of years ago. This would mean, if true, the Tutsies are "Canaanites" because they are the descendants of Ham via Canaan and his son Cush.

A Tutsi male. Notice the facial hair, long thin nose. Bantus (pure-blooded Africans) have no facial hair and flat-broad noses.

The Tutsies were lighter-skinned (generally) than the Hutus, because the Hutus were pure native Bantus; while the Tootsies were part Bantu (Negro) and part "Hamite"; having migrated to Rwanda 600 years before from parts of southern Sudan (Cush). This brings us to our next question.

Q. Why would Noah "curse" the son of Ham, when it was Ham who offended Him?

The Torah has no answer. The Qur'an has no answer. However, in a Revelation to Joseph Smith called "The Book of Moses" (Shoghi Effendi believed Joseph Smith to be a "Seer"--a non-prophet who sees angels), it reads that Ham married a Cainite woman named "Egyptus". This angered Noah, because the LORD had sent the flood specifically because the Sethites (descendants of Seth--the third son of Adam and Eve) had intermarried with the Cainites: in violation of the decree of God. The LORD wanted the Sethites and Cainites to be "separate"; because the Cainites had evil ways and would corrupt the more-pure Sethites. This happened, and the LORD sent the great flood.

In other words, Cain, son of Adam, was genetically "evil" ("black") and this "evil gene" was passed to his descendants the Cainites ("Qayin" in Hebrew and Arabic). The LORD did not want the evil Cainites intermarrying with the not-so-evil Sethites, and commanded they remain separate. But, according to the Bible, the "sons of God" (Sethites) saw "the children of men" (Cainite women), that they were "fair" (beautiful) and married them. Apparently, the evil Cainite women dressed sexy, wore make-up, and were just generally more appealing than the plain-Jane stay-at-home Sethite women.

It says in Genesis that Noah was "perfect in his generations" (Genesis 6:9). The Hebrew says that Noah was "pure in his family-tree". It means--basically--he had no Cainite ancestry, and everybody else did. That is why, Moses tells us, that the LORD choose Noah; because he wanted to purify the Sethite line of Cainite blood (lineage), so the LORD chose a pure Sethite with pure Sethite sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

However, according to a Revelation to Joseph Smith (The Book of Moses), Ham married a Cainite woman named Egyptus! Thus the Cainite bloodline continued through the Flood. Noah was upset with this, but said nothing until after he was drunk, and then pronounced a "curse" upon Canaan and his posterity "forver"; that they would be "slaves" to the descendants of Shem (Semites) and the descendants of Japhath (Jephathites).

And Moses gives us a "family tree" of just who the descandants of these brothers are:

Bible scholars "know" who these descendants are. For example, "Elam" is located in southwest Iran! Just about all the the "sons" of Shem and Japheth are ancient "countries" in the Middle-East, Persia, and Asia Minor (Turkey).

According to the best theories of scholars:

The Sons of Ham:

Cush and hid descendants settled in the greater Ethiopian area (Sudan, Abyssinia, Aritrea, Somalia. The languages of Somali, Arar, Oromo, and Beja are still called today "Cushite" languages. The Cushites were ordinally Hamites (of the Adamic race), but over time intermarried with the Bantus (native Africans) and produced the Afro-Hamitic tribes (of which the Tootsies are one).

Phut ("Poot") and his descendants settled along the North African coast from Libya to Morrocco. They are known today as the "Berbers". They resemble the Arabs (other Adamites).

Mizraim settled in Egypt and the land of Canaan, and his descendants in Egypt intermarried somewhat with the native Bantus (more in the south less in the north) and produced what we know today as "the Ancient Egyptians"; a combination of "Adamic" (ruddy-skinned, black straight hair, brown eyes, and prominent noses) and Bantus (black-skinned, flat noses, kinky black hair). The further north on the Nile the more "Adamitic" the Egyptians appeared, and the further South the more mixed-race the Egyptians appeared.

*The Son of Shem became the "Semites" and settled in what is now Syria, southern Turkey, Iraq, Elam, Persia (southern Iran), Saudi Arabia, Behrain, Qatar, Yemen, Oman, the coasts of southern Iran, Baluchistan, and what is now the United Arab Emirates.

*The Sons of Japheth refers to those who settled in Asia Minor (Turkey), Greece, the Balkins, and the Caucasus mountains (Georgia, Osetia, Checknya, Dagistan, Azerbaijan, etc.). Their descendants today include the Turks, Georgians, Chechnians, Osetians, Greeks, Italians, Romanians, and Bulgarians. The "Russians" are a combination of Bulgarians and various other non-Adamic tribes such as Finns, Tartars, Balts, and, of course, the Slavs.

The Table of Nations in Genesis did not include all nations of the Earth; just the nations the Hebrews believed had the "blood" of the sons of Noah in them.

According to the Curse of Canaan, ponounced by a Manifestation of God (Noah) upon him and his (Canaan's) descendants, they would be "servants of servants" to the descendants of Shem and Japheth. Was this fulfilled in human history?

Shem refers to the Shemites: the Semites. These include the Arabs, Hebrews, Aramaens, Assyrians, and the Elamites. The "Persians" were a combination of Arab-speaking Elamites and Indo-European-speaking Medes (from northern Iran). Thus, the blood of Shem was in them too.

From before the time of Muhammad until the 1920s, Arabs and Persians engaged in the black slave trade along the East African coast. Millions of black slaves were brought to the Arabian penninsula and to the coast of Persia. Both The Bá b and Baha'u'llah owned black African slaves.

The Romans had many slaves; most of them from North Africa (Libyans) who were Adamic (ruddy-skinned), but others from all over their empire. They had a "few" black African slaves, but not many.

Many of the Roman slaves were Carthagians; enslaved after Carthage was destroyed by the Romans. Cathagians were immigrants from Tyre, Lebanon. The Romans called them "Poonee" (Phonecians). They were Canaanites.

The Romans themselves were Italians, and claimed they came from two twin brothers Romulus and Remus; both of a prince of Troy who fled Troy when the Greeks destroyed the city about 1500 B.C. The Trojans were Luwians, a Thracian tribe descended from Tiras the son of Japheth, the son of Noah.

The Romans (Japehites) enslaved the Carthagians (Canaanites).

The Arabs (Shemites) enslaves black Africa tribes who lives along the coast of East Africa; such as the Somalians, Afar, Ogomo, Tootsie, and other "Cushite" tribes (i.e. the descendants of Adamic Cushites and native Bantus).

The Europeans enslaved black Africans from the coasts of West Africa from Senegal in the North to Angola in the South. Many (if not most) of these tribes had "Hamitic" blood in them: such as the Mande, Dogon, Ashanti, etc. African-American scholar Molefi Kete Asante writes:

“The Hausa language is in the Afro-Asiatic language family, and is the most widely spoken language in West Africa. The language is closely linked with ancient Egypt.
The Yoruba claim an Egyptian origin.” (Black Heritage Unveiled, pp.165,166)
Hamitic blood entered West Africa via migrations over thousands of years; from Afro-Cushites from the East and Afro-Berbers from the North.

The Romans and Greeks (Japhethites) and Persians (Shemite/Japhethites) enslaved the Egyptians and Canaanites (Hamites). The Egyptians had some "Negroe" blood in them, but the Canaanites did not; they remained pretty much a "pure" Adamic Race (descendants of Seth via Ham and descendants of Cain via Egyptus).

The evidence is clear that the "Canaanites" (pure Canaanites or mixed-race Canaanites) have always been enslaved by Semites (descendants of Shem) and Japhethites (descendants of Japheth).

In other words, human history has shown that the Curse of Canaan--pronounced by a Manifestation of God about 2800 B.C., has been was fulfilled in human history.

Q. How can you say that when the ancient Egyptians go back way before 2800 B.C.?

There was a civilization in ancient Egypt before 2800 B.C., when a comet hit the Indian Ocean and sent massive flooding all over the planet. But, we know that Canaanites later migrated into the Nile Valley. The first Egyptians called them "Abiru" (strangers) and "Hiksos" (goat-herders).

Q. Could the first Egyptians--before the Canaanites came to Egypt-- have been black race as some believe?

It is quite possible, we do not know for certain.

The Canaanites were of the "Adamic" Race. The name "Adam" in Hebrew means "ruddy-skinned". We can see this "ruddy" (light reddish) color among the Arabs, Turks, many Greeks, many Italians (in the south of Italy), many Portugues, some Spaniards, Moors, Berbers (of North Africa), Taralag (of North Africa), Egyptians, Libyans, Sephardic Jews, Palestinians, Bedouins, Arabs, Yemenis, Elamites, and among many Persians (espeiclally those from the south of Iran).

Relief and painting of ancient Canaanites in Egyptian temples

The Canaanites were of the Adamic Race; a race of reddish-skinned Caucasoids who had prominent noses and facial hair. They had black eyes, brown eyes, and light reddish skin. They were not "Negroes".

However, some Canaanites migrated and colonized Egypt, Sudan, and the greater Ethiopia region. Over thousands of years, they intermmarried with the native Bantus and produced an Afro-Hamitic mixed-race. This Afro-Hamtic mixed race (called by many names in many different tribes) gradually migrated into West, Central, and East Africa; speaking Afro-Hamitic languages such as Swahili, Somalian, Dogon, Mande, etc. These tribes had a dual-bloodline: one from Ham (son of Noah) via Cush, and one from the the Bantus (native Africans). It was "coincidentally" from these Afro-Hamitic tribes that the Europeans and Arabs took their black slaves into the Americas or into the Middle-East and Persia.

The Arabs and Persians married the black slave women, and their children inherited both bloodlines. Saudi Arabians today are 14% African. The Yemenis are more like 30% African. The Persians are probably about 5% African.

White Europeans, specifically the Anglo-Saxons (British) engaged in the black African slave trade. The Anglos and Saxons were Germanic tribes from northern Germany who invaded and conquered the Bretons; who were a Celtic tribe. The Celts were originally called the Gauls. The Greeks called them the Cimmerians. The Assyrians called them the Gimmeri. The Hebrews called them Gomer (a son of Japheth).

What became known as the "British" people were a combination of Celtic ("keltic") tribes (Gauls/Cimmerians) along with Anglo-Saxons from northern Germany, and "Normans" who were a combination of Danish and French. The French themselves were a combination of Gauls and Romans and Germans. Thus, the British (white Americans were mostly from Britain) had the blood of "Japheth" in them--from Gomer (Cimmerians) son of Japheth. The homeland of the Gauls (Celts) is Galatia; now a province in south central Turkey.

Thus, the Curse of Canaan was also fulfilled in the British/American slave trade: because the British had Celtic (keltic) blood, and the Celts (kelts) were originally from Asia Minor, from the land of Galatia (Greek: land of the Guals) which is in central Asia Minor (nor Turkey).

Arabs (Shem) enslaved "Cushite" black Africans.

Iberians (Portuguese and Spanish) enslaved "Cushite" black Africans (i.e. Bantus with some Cushite ancestry).

Italians (Romans) and Greeks enslaved Canaanites (Carthagians, Tyrenians, Sidonians, etc.).

Romans and Greeks (Empire of Alexander), and Persians and Arabs enslaved the Egyptians and Lybians and North African "Canaanite" tribes such as the Berbers, etc.

The black African tribes that were enslaves were, of course, not "pure" Cushite! They were mostly Bantu (black african race), but had a "little" Cushite lineage (bloodline) in them. According to ancient Jewish historians, Cush settled in what is now Yemen, then some of his descendants crossed the narrow straight that separates Yemen from Africa, and settled in the regions of Aritrea, Ethiopia, eastern and southern Sudan, and Somalia. Over thousands of years, the Cushites (of the Adamic race--ruddy skinned Caucasoids) intermarried with black African woman, and produced an Afro-Cushite race; one tribe of which are the Tootsies of Rwanda and Burundi.

Human history has proven that The Curse of Canaan was not merely a "Myth" or "parable" but a real event. A Manifesation of God "cursed" Canaan and his posterity, for all time, to be a "servant of servants" to the descendants of Shem and Japheth. We have seen this literally happened.

*The Arabs are the descendant of Shem.
*The Romans and Greeks are the descendants of Japheth.
*The Iberians (Portuguese and Spanish) had in them the blood of the Romans--who themselves claim descent from the Trojans, and the Trojans being Luwians--a tribe of Thracians--descendants of Tiras son of Japheth. *The British (who had Roman and Celtic bloodlines) were the descendants of Japheth.
*The Belgians (Flems and Wollonians) had the blood of the Celts and Romans in them; as well as Germanic bloodlines)--and thus can be called the "son of Japheth).

The Arabs, and Romans, and Greeks, and Iberians, and the Belgians, and British all (the slave-traders and slave-owners in the American South were British by bloodline) enslaved those with the blood of Canaan in them (Sidonese, Tyrenians, Cathagians, Eygptians, Libyans, Berbers, Moors, Afro-Hamitic tribes in black Africa), at one time of another, in direct fulfillment of the Curse of Canaan pronounced by a Manifestation of God thousands of years ago.

Q. But this is RACIST! How could God be behind anything that is racist?

Actually, it is NOT "racist". The term "racism" means the belief that one race is "superior" to others. There is nothing in the Curse of Canaan that says that the sons of Shem and Japheth are "superior" to the sons of Canaan (descendant of Canaan). The Curse of Canaan only says that the descendants of Canaan would be "servants of servants" to the sons of Sham and Japheth. And human history supports this is exactly what happened.

Certainly, the ancient Egyptians (who were a mixture of Caucasoid Canaanites and Bantus--native Africans) were NOT "inferior" to the Romans or Greeks or Persians who conquered them!

Q. Didn't the slave-owners of the South justify the enslavment of black Africans, using the Curse of Canaan as their justification?

Yes! But because they were "racist" and used the Curse of Canaan excuse doesn't mean the Curse of Canaan was not true! Wealthy Southern whites (about 3% of the white population) enslaved black African slaves because they worshipped Mammon (riches). They did not care if their slaves were white, black, yellow, or pink with purple dots! They cared only about "money" the love of money is the root of all evil (1 Timothy 6:10). They used the Cuse of Canaan excuse as a way to "disarm" Christians who said that slavery was against God's will.

Q. But wasn't slavery against the Will of God?

Some of us believe in the Earth-is-Hell View; that the material/physical realm is Nawsoot, and Nawsoot is "Hell"; where the Sun burns and wares out our skins, and where we are "punished". In other words:

Heyhoot (Realm of the Divine Essence)
Lawhoot (Realm of the Names/Attributes)
Jawbawroot (Realm of the Powers)
Mawlawkoot (Realm of the Angels)
"Spiritual Realms" (Heaven)
"Physical Realm" (Hell)
Nawsoot (Reaml of the Mortals)

According to the Earth-is-Hell View, we are "saved" by escaping from Nawsoot by being "born again" by the Holy Spirit. If we are not born again on this planet, then we must go to another material planet; to experience another mortal life. There, we will again have the opportunity to be born again and thus escape Nawsoot at death, or we can die again and go to yet another material planet and again experience Nawsoot (material realm) where the Sun burns our skin, and where we again experience pain, sorrow, injustice, separation of loved ones, ageing, and death.

Q. But didn't 'Abdu'l-Baha tell us that reincarnation was false?

Yes, but He qualified it! He said that the belief that human souls return "to this material world" is false. Under the Earth-is-Hell View we do not return to "this" material world, but go on to another: one life per planet.

Under the Earth-is-Hell View, we "sinned" on a previous world (called the Primordial World) to this one, and we were sent here to this material planet as punishment. In other words, Earth-is-Hell; the place of punishment from sins committed on the Primodial World (the material planet we had a life on before this one).

Baha'u'llah wrote that we are living in the Netherworld (i.e. Hell):

"O servants! This nether world is the abode of demons: Guard yourselves from approaching them. By demons is meant those wayward souls who, with the burden of their evil deeds, slumber in the chambers of oblivion. Their sleep is preferable to their wakefulness, and their death is better than their life." (The Tabernacle of Unity 4:7)
Baha'u'llah identifies our material world as "the abode of demons" (i.e. Hell), and interprets "demons" as meaning "wayward souls".

I believe in the Earth-is-Hell View; that all material planets (such as Earth) is "Hell" where the "fire" (ultra-violet rays) of the Sun burns our skin, and where we experience pain, sorrow, separation of loved ones, injustice, aging, and death.

In the Holy Qur'an, "Hell-fire" is the place of punishement; where the Fire burns and wares-out of skin, and we are given "new skins" to continue to feel the punishment. It is the "abode of demons" who torment us day and night.

Our material realm is called NÁSÚT (naw-soot); the material/physical realm.

Under the Consecutive Incarnation doctrine, we are in Hell now! Our spirits came to this material world for punishment. And, if we are not "saved" (born again by the Fire of the Love of God) on this material planet, we must go to another; to pay for sins committed here. I believe this is what the Holy Qu'ran means when it says:

"And when their skins have been worn out by hell-fire We shall give them new skins in order that they may continue to feel the punishment." [Qu'ran 4:56]

By "new skins" is meant new physical bodies, born of new mothers, on other material planets. This is Consecutive Incarnation.

Those who are "saved by the Fire of the Love of God shall not go "far away" from this material planet, but, upon death, they will enter the Spiritual Realms (Heaven); the Unseen World that surrounds us. But, if we are not "saved" during this life, we must go to another material planet, far away from here, to once again experience pain, sorrow, separation of loved ones, toil, injustice, oppression by "Demons" (i.e. wayward souls), deformity, disease, aging, and death.

Q. But did not 'Abdu'l-Baha teach that only the souls of the Prophets are pre-existent?

By "souls" He meant "nafs" (individualites/personalities). Each world we have a different "nafs" (soul), but our ruh (spirit) is the same. This is why 'Abdu'l-Baha said;

"The spirit is independent of the body, and in relation to it the spirit is an essential pre-existence." (SAQ p.322)
The Souls (Nafs) of the Prophets never change, and they "return" to this material world in every Dispensation. For example, Mollah Husayn Bushru'i, the first Letter of the Living, believed he was the reincarnation of the Soul (Nafs) of the Prophet Muhammad. The Báb claimed in the the Bayan that He was the "return" of the RUH (Spirit) of the Prophet Muhammad. Shoghi Effendi purportedly said:
"The early Babis believed in reincarnation. Mollah Husayn in Fort Tabarsi was longing to be martyred and then return." (Pilgrim's Notes of Marguerite R. Sears)
It is unthinkable that the first Letter of the Living did not understand the doctrines of The Báb! All souls don't return, just the souls of the Prophets; who can return as "Chosen Ones" such as was Mollah Husayn Bushru'i.

Baha'u'llah wrote of a human soul returning:

"The mysteries of man's physical death and of his return have not been divulged, and still remain unread. By the righteousness of God! Were they to be revealed, they would evoke such fear and sorrow that some would perish, while others would be so filled with gladness as to wish for death, and beseech, with unceasing longing, the one true God -- exalted be His glory -- to hasten their end." (Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah,p. 345)
By "his return" Baha'u'llah could only mean:

a) Our souls "return" to this material planet (which 'Abdu'l-Baha says in impossible).

b) Our souls "return" to Násút (the Material/Physical Realm)--not on this material planet but on another-- which 'Abdu'l-Baha never denies.

Many Baha'is have told me in the past: "Don't worry about the Afterlife! There is too much to do in this life!"

Baha'u'llah wrote just the exact opposite, that some who would know their "return" would be happy and others "perish" from fear.

Q. But how can anything racist be from God Who teaches us against racism?

The Curse of Canaan is NOT racist! The term "racism" means: "The belief that one race is superior to another!" Racism as not founded upon the Bible or the Qur'an, but upon Social-Darwinism; the belief that some races are more highly evolved than others.

The Curse of Canaan never said the Japhethites and Shemites were "superior" to the Canaanites! It said only that the Canaanites would "serve" the Japhethites and Shemites. And this is what happened.

Q. Why would God (via Noah) "curse" a race or bloodline (lineage) for the sin of their ancestory Ham?

According to Arab, Jewish, and European Bible scholars, before this century, the Canaanites were enslaved because their ancestory Ham, son of Noah, "uncovered the nakedness" of his father Noah. The term "ucover the nakedness" is a Hebrew ephemism which means "had sex with". In other words, if you "uncovered the nakedness" of a woman, it means you have sex with her. Noah was a wine-grower who got drunk (fell asleep), and was sodomized by his son Ham. That is what original Hebrew says. A horrible offence. But Noah doesn't curse Ham, but Ham's son Canaan, and all his descendants for all time.


The Bible and the Qur'an doesn't tell us "why" Noah cursed Canaan and all his descendants for the sin of Ham his father.

But, a Revelation to Joseph Smith called The Book of Moses, does:

22: And Enouch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save [exept] it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not a place among them." (Moses 7:22)
Now, most Mormons in the 19th and early 20th century were Yankee Protestants. To them "black" means "Negro". So, they interpreted "the seed of Cain were black" to mean that the seed (descendants) of Cain were Negroes. Of course, many races on Earth have black skin, not just black Africans. But, 19th century Mormons did not know that. The only black-skinned people they were aware of were "Negroes". So, they concluded the "seed of Cain" were "Negroes". But, in ancient Hebrew "black" meant "unpure" and "evil" and white means "pure" or "good"; with no connotation at all about skin-color (the ancient Hebrews being Adamites--having reddish skin).

But, the Mormons did not know that.

In "The Book of Moses" (a revelation to Joseph Smith) it says that the LORD sent the great Flood because the descendants of Cain (Cainites) had intermarried with the descendant of Seth (Sethites). It says "and the seed of Cain were black." (Moses 7:33). According to ancient Hebrew idiom, something "black" meant "impure" or "wicked" or "inclined to evil". It had no skin-color connotations.

In other words, the Cainites inherited an "evil gene" from their father Cain (slayer of Abel), who caused them to become "black" (inclined to evil). Many scientists today are beginning to acknowledge the "genetic" factor in criminals. A criminal is likely to sire more criminals. A good man is likely to sire more good men.

In says in Genesis that the "sons of God" saw the "daughters of men" that they were "fair" and came down and married them. Joseph Smith interpreted this to mean that the Sethites (sons of God) who dwelt in the mountains saw that the daughters of Cain (Cainite women) were "fair" (sexy/beautifuL) and married the Cainite women instead of he plain-jane Sethite women. If the Cainites were "Negroes" then this meant that the white Sethite men refused to marry white Sethite women, seeing the Negro women were more beautiful.

I don't believe that. I believe the Cainites and Sethites were both of the same race: the Adamic Race. I believe they had the same color hair, eyes, and skin color. In Hebrew Adam is Aw-Dawm, and it means literally "to appear red". There are only five red-skinned races on Earth:

*Amerinds (American Indians)

The Arabs and Berbers and Kurds and Turks are related to each other, and in the "right" area to where Moses said the Garden of Eden was (i.e. Sumeria).

According to The Book of Moses(a revelation to Joseph Smith) the "seed of Cain were black" (Moses 7:22); which--according to ancient Hebrew and Egyptian idiom (Moses was an ancient Hebrew educated by the Egyptians) means "inclined to evil". According to The Book of Moses, the LORD doesn't want the Sethites to intermarry with the Cainites; because then the resulting Sethite/Cainite race would also be "black" (inclined to evil).

But, the Sethite males preferred the Cainite woman, and they interminged. And, the land became "corrupt". Sure enough!

So, the LORD decides to wipe-out "Man" ("Aw-Dawn"--the Adamites), so He sends a flood. But, before He sends a flood He chooses a "man" (Adamite) who is "perfect in his generations" (Hebrew: "pure in his lineage/bloodline), who has no Cainite blood in him; so that the pure Sethite line can be re-established. Noah is a pure Sethite; with no Cainite lineage (bloodline).

By the time of Noah, the Cainites and Sethites were really "one" people. They had intermarried completely, and they were inclinded to evil; because of the Cainite lineage (bloodline). So, the LORD decided to destroy "Man" (i.e. the Adamites), but He also wanted to preserve the pure Sethite lineage (bloodline). So, how to "get rid" of the Cainite bloodline while at the same time preserving a "remnant" of the Sethite lineage?

Answer: Send a great flood to wipe out the "Man" (the Adamites) but choose one man with pure Sethite lineage to continue the line of Seth (and to continue the line of Adamites).

According to the Qu'ran Noah had four sons, and one was rebellious and he drowned in the flood. But three sons obeyed and got aboard the Ark with their wives. Eight souls in all; no children yet.

According to The Book of Moses (a Revelation to Joseph Smith), Ham violated the Law of God and married "Egyptus"; a Cainite woman. Thus, the Cainite bloodline was preserved through the Flood.

Q. But doesn't the Faith teach that the Flood of Noah is just a parable, that it never happened?

There is nothing in the Holy Writings that say that. There is a letter written by a secretary of the Guardian which inplies that. I don't believe in the Infallibility of the Secretaries. I believe the Flood really happened.

Not all human and animal life were killed! Only those who dwelt in the "land" that Noah dwelt in; the place where "Man" (the Adamites) dwelt.

In English "Man" means either a male human beings, or the human race. But, anciently, tribes called themselves "men" or "people" and they called other tribes "creatures". Early British colonists to America called themselves "men" and Indians "savages" and blacks "Negroes". Only they were "men". When Jefferson wrote that "all men were created equal" he had no reference to Indians or Negroes because neither he nor his contemporaries called Indians or Negroes "men". The term "men" only applied to white males; not to women, and not to human males of other "species" (as he called it).

In Hebrew the name for "male human" is ISH (eesh). The name for an "Adamite" is ADAM (aw-dawn="to appear red").

The ancient Egyptians called themselves "Men" but they did not use that term for others. Up until the 19th century, the Jews called themselves "Men" but did not apply the term to others. Most of the Indian tribes of North America called themselves (in their own language) "Men" but did not apply that to other Indian tribes. They referred to white men as "white creatures" and not "men".

So, when Genesis says that the LORD decided to destroy all of "Mankind" He means the Adamites (the men and women who appear red who live in the House of the Pure); not to all human beings everywhere.

Q. Who were the Adamites? Are not all human beings the descendants of Adam?

In Hebrew the name "Adam" is "aw-dawm" (aw=to show, to appear dawm=bloody, ruddy, reddish). "Adam" literally means "to appear ruddy". Ruddy means "of a reddish hue". Not true red (like American Indians), but light-reddish.

Pure-blooded Adamites are indeed "ruddy" (light-reddish) in their skin color. Bantus (Africans) are black or brown. Indo-Europeans are white. Asians are yellow. American Indians are red. But pure-blooded Arabs, Canaanites, Egyptians, Anatolians, Georgians, Chechnyans, Yemenese (all the nations listed as the descendants of Noah in Genesis chapter 10) are "ruddy". Some are lighter than others because they mixed with Indo-Euorpeans. Some are darker than others because they mixed with black Africans. But Adamites refer to the descendants of Adam--a ruddy-skinned race of those with black hair and brown or black eyes with prominent noses and sinificant body and facial hair. The Adamic Race.

A ruddy-skinned Berber of North Africa. A pure Adamite

The Adamic Race spread into Europe (ancient Europeans had no facial or body hair), into Africa (Afro-Cushite tribes), into Persia (Elamites), into Central Asia (Turks), into India (Aryans), and into China and Mongolia (Turks), into Japan (Aye-Noo), into the Pacific (British/French/Dutch), and into the Americas in ancient times (Clovis Peoples) and modern times (Vikings, Spanish, Portuguese, French, British) and into Australia (British).

The most ancient civilization we know of on this planet is the Sumerians of southern Iraq/Elam. The Bible identifies this area as the location of the Garden of Eden; the place where four great rivers converge.

The location that Genesis identifies as the Garden of Eden was "flooded" when the Persian Gulf was flooded about 2800 B.C. when a comet sent trillions of tons of water-vapor into the atmosphere.
The Sumerians spoke a language unlike any other language on this planet. They didn't call their land "Sumeria". They called it "E-din" ("House of the Pure").

Living in a fertile plain, well-watered, the Sumerians had no reason to break out into the wild deserts where "beats of the field" (i.e. non-Sumerian humans) dwelt. They dwelt in a very pleasant area; until the flood came.

There is scientific proof that a great comet hit the southern Indian Ocean at about 2800 B.C., and sent trillions of tons of water into the stratosphere which fell as rain and snow. In just a matter of a few months Edin was flooded completely. The northern portion of Edin (Sumeria) eventually became dry land again, but the southern portion of "Edin" was flooded permanently when the Persian Gult rose at least 35 feet (15 cubits) the very height Genesis said the flood waters rose to.

All of the oceans of the world arose about 35 feet because the comet (from the outer solar system and made mostly of ice) broght with it trillions of tons of new water to the planet.

According to 'Abdu'l-Baha, Adam had no father and no mother, and He lived 6,000 years ago. But, this is for another article.

Q. But doesn't the Bible says that all living things were destroyed by the Flood except for Noah and his family and the animals aboard the Ark?

The Hebrew name for "earth" or "land" is eretz. It means the cultivated land. It has no reference to the deserts or mountains. It means the "land" upon which things grow, where cattle graze, etc. Genesis says the "whole earth" (entire eretz) was covered by the flood. All of E-din was under-water. Eventually the water drained from the northern section of Edin, but the southern section remained under water to this day; because of the raise of the sea-levels by 35 feet.

Q. Doesn't Genesis say that the mountains were also covered?

In Hebrew the word for "mountains" and "hill" even a small hill is "har". It says the "hareem" (hills or mountains) were covered by the flood waters.

Armageddon refers to Har-Megiddo;a "hill" in Northern Israel. This is it:


The "Mountain of Megiddo" is not very mountainous. "Har" in Hebrew can mean a very high mountain, or a small "hill" like Har-Megiddo in northern Israel. So,when Genesis says "and all the mountains were covered" we should not assume all the high mountains on planet Earth were covered; only the "hills" located on the flood-plain of Edin.

The Sumerian E-Din ("House of the Pure") is very flat, and much of it is a flood plain. There are a few small hills; very easy for a massive flood to cover.

Q. But don't the Holy Writings say that the Flood of Noah is only a metaphor?

No. A letter from Shoghi Effendi's secretary says that. The Holy Writings do not say that. I do not believe in the "Infallibility" of the Secretaries of Shoghi Effendi. Their writings should not be considered the "Infallible Pen" and should not be raised to the rank of Holy Writ.

Q. Why would God kill all the Adamites because they intermarried with each other? Isn't intermarriage a good thing?"

The LORD did not want the Sethites intermarrying with the Cainites because the ,b>"sons of Cain were black" (Moses 7:22); which means they were by nature inclined to evil, like their ancestor. The Sethites violated this.

A similar situation happened between the Baha'is and Azalis (followers of Suhb-i-Azal--the half-brother of Baha'u'llah). Baha'u'llah wanted the two groups totally separate, but the Turks wanted them together. Finally, the Turks agreed to a compromise; to let the some of the Baha'is live in Cyprus among the Azalis, and some of the Azalis were to live in Akka among the Baha'is. The result was the poisoning of Baha'u'llah, and the murdering of seven Azalis by a small group of Baha'is. Intermarriage between the two groups would have been unworkable and quite disasterous.

In like manner, the second Son of Baha'u'llah, Muhammad Ali Effendi, was declared a "Covenant-Breaker". Not only him, but all his "house" including his current descendants (many who live in Haifa and Akka), are not allowed to associate with Baha'is! They call themselves the "Beha'is". They are under a "curse". Baha'is are forbiddent to speak with them; much less intermarry!

Shoghi Effendi wanted the Beha'is and Baha'is to remain separate; apparently forever.

Cain may have had an "gene" that inclined him to evil. This may be why the LORD wanted the Cainite and Sethite bloodlines to remain separate.

The Cainites would lead the Sethites away from the worship of the One God; into idolatry and evil practices. But Sethite men married Cainite women, and after a few generations, "Man" (i.e. the Adamites) became "corrupt" (included to evil and wickedness). So, the LORD chose a "pure blooded" Sethite to save himself and his family, in order to continue the Sethite line but get-rid-of the "black" (i.e. "inclined to evil") Cainite line.

The Sethites and Cainites were not different races. They were both "Adamites". They had ruddy-skin, dark hair, dark eyes, body hair, facial hair (unlike other races at that time), and prominent noses. They spoke the same language (Sumerian or "Adamic"--unlike any other language on Earth). But...the point is, the Cainites inherited an "evil gene" from their ancestor, and the LORD did not want the Sethites to become "black" (inclined to evil) as well.

The Sethites were to remain "separate" (segregated) from the Cainites.

According to "The Book of Moses" (a revelation to Joseph Smith), Ham, the son of Noah, married "Egyptus" a Cainite woman; thus preserving the Cainite line through the flood.

The son of Ham and Egyptus was Canaan, and it was Canaan (not Ham) who was cursed by Noah.

When the LORD led Moses and the Isrealites out of Egypt, He did not do the "Baha'i" thing and say: "Go into Canaan and intermarry with the Canaanites so that all of you can be one!" The Canaanites were inclined to evil and idolary. Instead, the LORD told Moses to "utterly destroy" the Canaanites: men, women, and children! This is the Torah says; written by Moses according to Baha'u'llah.

The Israelites could not utterly destroy the Canaanites, but they remained separate; for a time. By the time of the Prophet Erza (600 B.C.) many Israelites had intermarried with the Canaanites. When the Prophet Ezra saw this, he cried, and told the Isrealite men to divorce their Canaanite wives. This was done.

Q. How could any Prophet of God wish to commit genocide or tell men to divorce their wives?

This is what the Bible says! The Canaanite were under a Curse of God placed upon them by the Prophet Noah thousands of years before.

Under the Earth-is-Hell View, the material realm (Nawsoot) is a place of punishment for those spirits who committed sin in the Primordial World. We are them. We come here to suffer, in one way or another, or in multiple ways, for sins committed in the Primordial World.

Q. What is the Primordial World?

That depends whom you ask. We are spirits that existed before this planet, on another world. There, we sinned. We are here "paying" for that.

Q. But don't the Teachings say that our souls have no existence of any kind before conception?

Yes, indeed, but in Islaam all of us are composed of a RUH (spirit) and a NAFS (soul). The NAFS (soul) is our individuality. Our RUH is our "higher nature" and our NAFS is our "lower nature". Our Nafs (soul) came into being at conception. It comes from Nature. But our RUH (spirit) is something that came from God. 'Abdu'l-Baha taught that the RUH (spirit) has is an "essential pre-existence":

"The spirit is independent of the body, and in relation to it the spirit is an essential pre-existence." (SAQ p.322)
The Shi'ite Seer, Shaykh Ahmad-i-Ahsa'i, taught that we have two bodies (one "phyical" and one "subtle") as well as a ruh (spirit) and a nafs (soul). All humans are therefore are a "quadruple" of physical body, ethereal body, spirit (ruh), and soul (nafs). Baha'u'llah agreed, and this is why He wrote:
"Thus hath the grace of God encompassed thy soul, thy spirit, thy physical body, and thy ethereal body." (Surah of Sorrows, p.8)
Our spirits came from God, and will return unto Him. Our spirits have had a long journey before coming to this material planet! I believe our spirits had other mortal lives on other material planets; one life per planet. This is called Consecutive Incarnation.

Q. But this seems like a form of reincarnation, which the Writings condemn. Did not 'Abdu'l-Baha say that reincarnation was untrue?

He indeed did, but He qualified it! He said:

"Such were the limited minds of the former philosophers, like Ptolemy and the others who believed and imagined that the world, life and existence were restricted to this terrestrial globe, and that this boundless space was confined within the nine spheres of heaven, and that all were empty and void. Consider how greatly their thoughts were limited and how weak their minds. Those who believe in reincarnation think that the spiritual worlds are restricted to the worlds of human imagination. Moreover, some of them, like the Druzes and the Nusayris, think that existence is restricted to this physical world. What an ignorant supposition! For in this universe of God, which appears in the most complete perfection, beauty and grandeur, the luminous stars of the material universe are innumerable! Then we must reflect how limitless and infinite are the spiritual worlds, which are the essential foundation. “Take heed ye who are endued with discernment.” (SAQ 187-88)
'Abdu'l-Baha denied that human souls can "return" to this material world. He condemns the narrowmindedness of the Druze and Nusayris (quasi-Muslim groups who live in Lebanon and Syria who believe in reincarnation--we return to this material world over and over again in order to reach perfection), by giving the example of the innumerable luminous stars (i.e. with planets circling them). This explanation of 'Abdu'l-Baha is absolutely senseless unless He intended to convey the belief that our spirits shall inhabit other planets around other stars. This is called Consecutive Incarnation.

But 'Abdu'l-Baha certainly denied the common conception of "Reincarnation" (that human souls return to this planet). He said:

"Therefore, reincarnation, whic h is the repeated appearance of the same spirit with its former essence [soul] and same condition in this same world is impossible and unrealistic." (SAQ 283)
Reincarnation=the return of the soul to this material planet (Earth).

Consecutive Incarnation=the spirit goes on to another material planet to experience another moral life.

Of course, the early followers of The Bab believed "ra'ja" (Arabic: "return"), that the Manifesatations of God "return" to this material world in every Dispensation. In other words, Mollah Husayn Bushru'i was the "return" of the Prophet Muhammad. The Bab and Jenab-i-Quddus were the "return" of the Imaam Mehdi (The Bab was the return of his RUH and Quddus was the return of his NAFS), Tahirih was the "return" of Fatimah, daughter of Muhammad, etc.

Shaykh Ahmad-i-Ahsa'i taught that the Manifesatations of God were 14 Divine Souls that "return" in every Dispensation.

Shaykh Ahmad did not teach that human souls can "return" to this material realm. Only the Manifestations of God "return". And by "Manifestations of God" he did not mean only the Major Prophets, but all Prophets (major and minor) as well as "Chosen Ones".

For example, Mary mother of Jesus was a "Chosen One". She "returned" as Fatimah, daughter of Muhammad. The early Bábís believed that Fatimah "returned" as Tahiri.

Q. But why isn't Consecutive Incarnation taught clearly in the Writings?

it is taught clearly in some of the Writings of The Báb, which have not been published yet. The compiler of Selections from the Writings of The Bab decided to leave those Verses out; probably since he believed they would cause "confusion". But there is no reason to cause confusion once one understands that "ra'ja" (return of the Manifestations), and "reincarnation" and "consecutive incarnation" (Journey through the Worlds of God) are three different things.

Much of the writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha have not yet been translated into English. I'm confident that He taught consecutive incarnation under the name of "the journey through the worlds of God". But, only time will tell.What does Consecutive Incarnation have to do with the Curse of Canaan?

Everything. It would be unjust of God to punish the descendants of Canaan for the sin of Ham. But, if the descendants of Canaan were "Covenant-Breakers" on a material planet before this one, then it makes sense that God would place these Moon-naw-feek-keen (violators) into a cursed lineage (bloodline).

In other words, Earth is a "Place of Punishment" for sins committed in the Pre-Existence. This is called the Earth-is-Hell View.Q. But how can a curse remain on an entire people for the actions of one man (Ham)?

Read The Earth-is-Hell View and you will understand. Canaan and his descendants had sinned in the Primodial World. This is why they were born in the lineage (bloodline) of Ham.

The Prophet Muhammad places a curse upon Abu Lahad and his "house" (entire family) in the Qur'an (111:1-5).

The Surah (Chapter) reads:

Destroyed will be the hands (power) of Abu Lahab, and he himself will perish. Of no avail shall be his wealth, nor what he has acquired. He will be roasted in the fire, And his wife, the carrier of firewood (tales of evil and slander?), Will have rope twisted around her neck." (111:1-5)
Abu Lahad was the uncle of Muhammad! His birth name was Abd al-Uzza bin Abdul Muttalib, who had red cheeks so was nicknamed Abu Lahab or "Father of Flame."

Abd Allah bin Abbas, a cousin of Muhammad's on his father's side, related the following:

When the Verse:--'And warn your tribe of near-kindred, was revealed, the Prophet ascended the Safa (mountain) and started calling, "O Bani Fihr! O Bani 'Adi!" addressing various tribes of Quraish till they were assembled. Those who could not come themselves, sent their messengers to see what was there. Abu Lahab and other people from Quraish came and the Prophet then said, "Suppose I told you that there is an (enemy) cavalry in the valley intending to attack you, would you believe me?" They said, "Yes, for we have not found you telling anything other than the truth." He then said, "I am a warner to you in face of a terrific punishment." Abu Lahab said (to the Prophet) "May your hands perish all this day. Is it for this purpose you have gathered us?" Then it was revealed: "Perish the hands of Abu Lahab (one of the Prophet's uncles), and perish he! His wealth and his children will not profit him...." (111.1-5)
There is a tradition which says that one day Abu Lahad came to the Ka'aba (temple at Mecca) to find Muhammad there. Not being a Shaykh (respected Elder), Muhammad was not supposed to be in the Ka'aba, and Abu Lahad strongly objected to His presence there. Muhammad then replied, "All men are equal in the eyes of God!" At that point, allegedly, Abu Lahad stormed outside, gathered some "entrails" (camel dung) and went back in and threw it on the Prophet.

The wife of Abu Lahad spread false rumors against the Prophet Muhammad.

Basically, because Abu Lahad had insulted the Prophet, the Prophet pronounced a curse of perpetual poverty upon Abu Lahad and his house. It is said that the descendants of Abu Lahad became the Bedouins; who live in tents, and in seemingly perpetual poverty (i.e. eternal no'er-do-wells).

The author of Negev Bedouin (online article) writes:

"As mentioned above, Bedouin citizens of Israel suffer from extreme rates of joblessness and endure the highest poverty rate in Israel. According to a 2007 Van Leer Institute study, 66 percent of Negev Bedouin as a whole lived under the poverty line (in unrecognized villages, the figure reached 80 percent), as compared with a poverty rate of 25 percent in the general Israeli population.[63] According to a 2003 Ben Gurion University study, 71% of Bedouin citizens suffer from hunger; among those supported by social services, 87% of children are in danger of hunger." (Negev Bedouin, p.3 online)
The Bedouins of Saudi Arabia (an oil-rich country) fair little better. Contrary to popular belief, the ruling Saud family (super-rich billionaire rulers of Saudi Arabia) were never Bedouins.

When a Manifestation of God pronounces a Divine Curse opon a man, or a woman, or a village, or a city, or a people, or a bloodline (lineage), or a RACE, then THAT is the Word and Will of God; regardless of whether "we" accept that or not.

Q. Did not Baha'u'llah abrogate all curses?

Where does it say that?

Baha'u'llah quotes the Qu'ran (11:21) where it says: "The curse of God be upon the people of tyranny." (Iqan p.12).

Baha'u'llah wrote:

"May God curse such people who cause such opression and to those who act tyrannically in these days when the Sun of Truth is still hidden behind the clouds of holiness." (Surih-i-Sabr, written in 1863, provisional translation)
He cursed tyrants and oppressors. If they are not punished in this life, when and where shall they be punished? Under the Consecutive Incarnation view, they will be punished during their next incarnation on another material planet circling another luminous star in the heavens.

Q. Isn't the story of Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel a myth?

According to whom?

'Abdu'l-Baha purportedly said in 1912:

"During the Cycle of Adam it was lawful and expedient for a man to marry his own sister, een as Abel, Cain, and Seth, married their sisters." (Promulgation of Universal Peace, p.356)
'Abdu'l-Baha believe that Adam existed, and had no parents (SAQ p.89), and that Cain, Seth, and Abel existed and married their sisters.

Neither the Bible nor the Qur'an mention the "sisters" of Cain and Abel, but they are mentioned in The Book of Moses (a revelation to Joseph Smith) which says that the sons of Adam married their sisters (Moses chapter 4 in The Pearl of Great Price--a book Mormons accept as Divine Revelation).

Q. Did not Joseph Smith also teach that black people were under some curse of God, and that is why black men could not become Mormon priests?

Joseph Smith believed that "Negroes" were the "sons of Cain" and of sons of Canaan. But he did ordain black men to the Mormon priesthood. Elijah Abel was a "Seventy Apostle" of the early Mormon Church. He was 1/4th black. There were others. Joseph Smith ran for the Presidency of the United States in 1843, and was the first American Presidential candidate to advocate the black slaves be "freed, educated, and given equal rights." (Compilation on the Negro in Mormonism, p.4, Brigham Young University Special Collections)

Joseph Smith was killed in June of 1844 in Carthage, Illinois, by an angry mob of anti-Mormons. The Mormon Church split into factions, with the largest faction following Brigham Young to Utah.

It was Brigham Young who first banned black men from the Mormon priesthood (which every Mormon male holds) in 1848 and from Mormon Temples. This priesthood-ban (all blacks banned from the Mormon priesthood and Mormon temples, but allowed to become Mormons) lasted until June 8th, 1978. Brigham Young was the first to teach the Curse of Cain Doctrine: that Negroes are the children of Cain through Canaan and Egyptus (Cainite wife of Ham).

The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (now called "Community of Christ"), led by Joseph Smith III (son of the Seer Joseph Smith) never had any such ban, and never taught the Curse of Cain Doctrine.

Mormon leaders always taught that "one day" the LORD would remove the "Curse of Cain" from off the "Negro" race, and they would hold the Priesthood and enter Mormon Temples. In June of 1978, the Mormon "Prophet" Spencer W. Kimball abrogated the priesthood-ban.

Synopsis of the Curse of Canaan

*Adam and Eve produce Cain

*Cain kills Abel

*The LORD curses Cain (Curse of Cain) to wander the Earth, the ground would not yield fruit. "Mark" of protection placed upon Cain so that if anyone kills him, his blood will be avenged seven-fold.

*Cain marries sister--produces Cainites.

*Seth marries sister--produces Sethites.

*The LORD commands them to remain separate (according to The Book of Moses--Revelation to Joseph Smith) because the "seed of Cain is black" (i.e. no reference to skin color--the seed of Cain are inclined to evil like their progenetor Cain).

*Sethites "see" Cainite women are beautiful, and marry them anyway--new mixed lineage (bloodline) becomes corrupt and wicked.

*The LORD decides to destroy "ADAM" (mankind)--because it has become wicked, but chooses a "pure-blooded" Sethite (Noah) to continue the Sethite lineage.

*Ham (a pure Sethite) marries Egyptus (Cainite) in violation of God's Law. Noah doesn't have the heart, apparently, to keep her out of the Ark.

*Ham "uncovers the nakedness" of his father (a possible reference to sodomy while Noah was drunk asleep) while He is drunk--he wakes up and curses Canaan--the son of Ham and Egyptus, to become a "servant of servants" to his brothers (Shem and Japheth).

*The Canaanites settle in what is now the Holy Land and Lebanon, but others settle in Yemen and still others in Egypt.

*Coming from "Canaan", some Canaanites enter Egypt, and intermingles with black Africans and produces the Kingdom of Kush south of Egypt.

*Soon after the time of Muhammad, Arabs invade and conquer the Kingdom of Kush, and push many Afro-Cushites south and west into other parts of Africa; spreading Cushite (Canaanite) bloodline with them. These Afro-Cushites are descendants of native Africans (Negroes) as well as Cush, the son of Canaan, the son of Egyptus, a descendant of Cain. They are also descendants of Ham and Noah and Seth.

*About 500 years after Muhammad, Arabs begin black African slave trade along East Coast of Africa; specifically the Afro-Cushite tribes as the Massai, Baraguya, Waarusha, Ngassi, Nandi, Hurang, etc.

*In the 15th century, Portuguese begin black European slavery along West African coast--targetting the tribes near the coast such as the Hausa and Yoruba; both "Hamitic" tribes (i.e. have a little Berber and thus "Hamitic" lineage). These West Africans are probably 98% pure-blooded "Negroes" but they have "some" (2%) Berber blood in them. The Berbers were Canaanites, and Canaan was the son of Ham and Egyptus, and Egyptus was a descendant of Cain.

*Millions of black Africans (with the blood of Canaan in them) were enslaved by Europeans (with the blood of Japheth in them) and Arabs (with the blood of Shem in them).

*Black African slavery ends in North America in 1865, and in South America by 1888, and in the Middle-East by 1925 (officially) or 1965 (in reality).

Q. Do you believe that the "Mark" of Cain was a black skin and negroid features as Mormon leaders taught for 130 years (1848-1978)?

Absolutely not! The pure Cainites (Qayin) still exist to this day! They are Arabs; not Negroes. They are a tribe of wandering blacksmiths in Saudi Arabia and Yemen. They have a tribal mark of protection called a "Sleb" ("cross" or "x") on their foreheads; which tells stangers, "If you kill a Qayin, then 7 will avenge his death." They do not farm, because, they say, the ground doesn't yield to them.

Q. Do you believe that black Africans have the blood of Cain in them?

Yes! I believe that the Afro-Hamitic tribes certainly do, but there are probably many tribes that do not. The black slave trade existed along the coast of West Africa and the coast of East Africa (Tanzania). West Africans have some Berber blood in them (Phut son Canaan) and East Africans have some Cushite blood in them (Cush son of Canaan).

Canaan was the son of Ham (and Egyptus--according to a Revelation to Joseph Smith). Ham was the son of Noah. Egyptus was a descendant of Cain, son of Adam.

Q. That is RACIST! How could God be behind anything that is racist? How can you believe that anyone is a descenant of Cain, who probably never existed?

'Abdu'l-Baha believed that Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel and Seth existed! So do I.

Some modern liberal Bible scholars speculate that the story of Cain and Abel is a "parable" about agriculturalists (Cain) and shepherds (Abel) having wars against in other in the ancient past. But, again, the Master accepted them as real historical people.

Q. It is not RACIST to believe that God would curse one race or people?

There is nothing in the Bible about Canaanites being "inferior" to others. The Canaanites and Semites and Japhephites were all of the same "Adamic" race. They all had ruddy-skin, black hair, dark eyes, and proninent noses. All were "Sumerians" from "Edin" originally.

Some Canaanites moved into Africa, and intermixed with black African tribes--thus the Canaanite lineage (bloodline) was introduced into black Africa.

The Holy Qur'an (Infallible Revelation) says that the Prophet Muhammad pronounced a "Curse" upon the House (extended family and descendants) of Abu Lahad (111:1-5). There is no indication this Divine Curse was ever removed from the House of Abu Lahad; which means that his descendants (probably hundreds of thousands by this time) are still under the "Curse of Abu Lahad".

The Curses of the Manifestations of God are from GOD, because They are the incarnations of the Names and Attributes of God. Their WORD is the WORD of God, and They have all power; whether we accept that, or not.

Q. What does The Book of Moses (a Revelation of Joseph Smith) have to do with the Baha'i Faith?

The revelations of Seers are helpful in "filling in the gaps" left in the Revelations of the Prophets. For example, neither the Bible nor the Qur'an speak of dinosaurs, or life on other planets, nor the original of angels and Jinn, nor why some people seem to be born "gay"--these are things not addressed or answered in the Revelations of Prophet, but most of all of them can be found in the revelations of Seers.

Q. What is a "Seer"?

A Prophet is an Incarnation of a Name/Attribute of God. They are INfallible Revelators. A "Seer" is an ordinary human being, male or female, with a human soul, who also receives Revelation. They are fallible Revelators. Their "Pen" is not infallible.

Q. Are you saying that black Africans are the descendants of Cain as the Mormons used to teach?

Moses says that Noah cursed Canaan and his "seed" (descendants). The sons of Canaan settled in "Canaan" and in Egypt and in greater Ethiopia; where they eventually produced an "Afro-Hamitic" race of many tribes. Some of these tribes migrated into West Africa, and Central Africa, and East Africa. The Tootsies are one of these "Afro-Hamitic" tribes. This is how the Adamic lineage (bloodline) spread throughout black Africa. It was from these Afro-Hamitic tribes (descendants of Bantus and Adamic Cushites) that the Arabs (Semites) and Europeans (Japhethites) took their "slaves". It all seems to fit.

I'm not saying that 100% of black African tribes have "Hamitic" blood in them, but many tribes do; because of the fact that the Cushites entered black Africa from Yemen thousands of years ago, and spread their seed among the native Bantu (black African) tribes, and the resulting Afro-Hamitic tribes later migrated.

Q. What does the Rwanda war have to do with this?

Rwanda had two major tribes: the Hutus who were pure Bantus (native Africans), and the Tootsies who migrated from the North hundreds of years before. When the French and Germans came this area, they noticed that the Hutus farmed while the Tootsies (unable to farm--the ground did not yield fruit to them) were cattle-herders. The tootsies were also lighter-skinned than the Hutus (having Cushite blood in them). So, the Germans and French put the Tootsies in charge of the government, education, and the skilled trades; considering them "superior" to the Hutus. This caused great resentment among the Hutus who did not want the Tootsies to rule over them.

As long as the Tootsies and Hutus were segregated, having their own land, their own leaders, things were peaceful among them. Good fences make good neighbors. However, when the French (and later Germans) tried to "integrate" the two groups--placing one above the other--that is what led to the genocidal war.

Like the Qayin (Cainites/Sleb) of Arabia, the Tootsies could not farm, and they were wanderers. The LORD cursed "Cain" with wandering (i.e. herding), and cursed the ground so that "Cain" could not farm.

I am not saying that all black Africans are "Cainites" (most can farm and do not wander as herders). I'm saying that the Afro-Hamitic tribes do have "Cainite" traits; in that they do not farm, and they speak Afro-Hamitic languages which means they have a connection to Cushites; the ancient descendants of Canaan.

Q. What does this have to do with the Baha'i Principles?

Noting, but the Baha'i Faith is not a "mere" set of Principles! It contains many teachings about the Afterlife, and about the Justice and Mercy of God. The Curse of Canaan is a true story about the Justice of God. If we ignore it, then we ignore a "lesson" that was meant NOT to be ignored.

Q. How could God, Who is Merciful, have anything to do with the slave trade which was very Unjust?

Was it? Remember, under the Earth-is-Hell View, we all lived in the Primordial World; which is, under this view, a material planet. For example, billions of years ago the Sun was smaller and cooler. Venus was in the "habital zone" like the Earth is today, but Earth was too far away fro the "habital zone". Perhaps Venus was the Primodial World; the material planet that bore human life before this one.

On the Primordial World, we all sinned. We came to this planet to "pay" for the sins committed on that world. Soem are born blind. Some are born deformed. Many have inherited diseases. Many experience injustice. Some are born healthy, and wealthy, and without disease in body and mind.

Some were born as QAYIN, or Canaanites (descendants of Canaan), and under the "Curse of Canaan"; which was a real curse of God, placed upon a real person (Canaan), thousands of years ago by a real Manifestation of God.

On the Primordial World (another material planet before this planet), some of us became Covenant-Breakers. That means, we had accepted the Message of the Prophet, but then rejected it. Here is what the Qur'an says about Covenant-Breakers:

"The Moojreemoon [Covenant-Breakers] shall be known by their marks [some translations insert here-"black faces"] and they will be seized by their heads and their feet." (55:41)

"On the Day when some faces will be white and some faces will be black: To those whose faces will be black, will be said: "Did ye reject Faith after accepting it? Taste then the penalty for rejecting Faith!" But those whose faces will be white, they will be in ALLAH's mercy; therein to dwell." (3:106-107)

Most Baha'is would interpret these Verse to mean that those who become Covenant-Breakers in this life shall have "down-cast" faces (i.e. "black") in the Afterlife, but those who stand firm in their faith shall have happy faces (ie. "white") in the Afterlife.

I disagree. I think "black faces" and "white faces" mean what it says. In the Primordial World, those who became Covenant-Breakers would, on this planet, have "black faces" and they would be "captured" by their heads and feet.

The black races have always been "seized" by their heads and feet by white races; in Africa and in India.

Under the Earth-is-Hell View, our material realm is "Hell". Earth-life is a place of punishment for rebellious spirits; those spirits who did not "bow to Adam" (i.e. truly accept the Manifestations of God) on the Primordial World.

Q. OH MY GOD! That is RAAAACiiiiST!!! How can you DARE say that black slavery was God's just punishment?

No! The Curse of Canaan is NOT raaaciiiiiiisssst! The term "Racism" is the belief that one race is "superior" to others. There was no such thing as "Racism" until Darwin's book: "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".

It was the Darwinists who invented "racism"; that some human races are more evolved (higher, more intelligent, more evolved) than others. The Eugenecists were Darwinists. The Nazis were Darwinists.

If by "racism" you mean "one group opressing another" then "racism" has always been here. The Normans oppressed the Saxons. The Saxons oppressed the Celts. The Romans oppressed everybody.

But "racism" is not about one white tribe oppressing another. "Racism" is defined as the belief that one "race" is "superior" to another. 'Abdu'l-Baha wrote:

"It should not be imagined that the people of Persia are inherently deficient in intelligence, or that for essential perceptiveness and understanding, inborn sagacity, intuition and wisdom, or innate capacity, they are inferior to others. God forbid! On the contrary, they have always excelled all other peoples in endowments conferred by birth." (Secret of Divine Civilization, p.9)
In Webster's Dictionary, under "Racism" is says:
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." (Webster's Unabriged Dictionary)
'Abdu'l-Baha believed that the Persian race was "innately" superior to all others.

August Forel, a Swiss psychologist who became a Baha'i in 1921, believed that white men were innately superior to "Negroes". He wrote:

"...the brain of the Negro is weaker than that of the white... Even for their own good the blacks must be treated as what they are, an absolutely subordinate, inferior, lower type of man, incapable themselves of culture. That must once and for all be clearly and openly stated." (August Forel, quoted in Houston S. Chamberlain's _The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century_)
August Forel wrote:
"There are several conditions ofutmost importance which Bahá’ís ought to meet if they wish to remainscientific.... They should refrain from metaphysics, from seeking toknow the Unknowable; and should occupy themselves wholly with the social good of humanity here on earth.... Our duty as Bahá’ís is not only to speak and think of God, but to be active for the social good.” (The Life and Times of August Forel)

It was August Forel who first came up with the listing of 12 “Principles of the Bahá’ís” and published in Sonne der Wahrheit, the German contemporary official Bahá’í magazine, in 1927.

August Forel was a scientific racist. Yet, August Forel had no "hate". He did not "oppress" nor advocate oppression of blacks. He was against slavery and oppression in all forms. He simply believe in "scientific racism"; that some races of humans were superior to others in intelligence.

Shoghi Effendi did puportedly said:

"All men are not born equal. That is a fundamental principle of the Cause." (Haifa Notes of Shoghi Effendi's Word, Jan,Feb,March 1937, p.26)
The Ku Klux Klan in the 1870s believed that "Negroes" were "inferior"; but so did 99% of white men in their day! That is not why they oppressed black people. They terrorized black people because of MONEY! Blacks provided them with cheap labor. If blacks got power by being allowed to vote and hold office, they would demand higher wages and a better life. The KKK was made up of wealthy plantation owners and their sons. They oppressed blacks for the same reason that Henry Ford hired thugs to beat-up auto-workers on strike: money!

Hired thugs roughing up stikers to prevent them from getting more money from their employer.

I have met black Baha'is who have told me all the terrible things "white folks" have done to black folks. I tell them:

"To blame all white people for what three percent of whites did to blacks is itself racist. Should whites blame all black people for what black criminals do to whites? Or vice versa? It was black chiefs who sold some of their subjects into slavery. What not blame the black chiefs, or their descendants? Why are all whites blamed for the actions of a few whites?"
After I say that, a few say: "Oh my God! YOU'RE A RACIST!"

To blame all whites for what %3 of whites did is like blaming the Russians for what the Nazis did to the Jews! Absurd beyond belief!

No more than 3% of whites living in the South were involved in the slave-trade. They bought black slaves from West Africa from their own black chiefs; for pieces of iron. These black men and white men who conspired together did so for the "love of money". For the whites "money" was gold. For the blacks it was iron. They oppressed the poor and powerless NOT because of "racism" but because of the love of money.

The Normans (who were white) who conquered the Engish in 1066 A.D. They continued to terrorize the white-skinned Anglo-Saxons in England; NOT because of "racism" but because of the love of money! The Normans wanted the Anglo-Saxons as "serfs" (servants). They wanted them to work hard for low pay, so the Normans could enjoy the "good life". The KKK did the same; the only difference being the difference in skin color. "Racism" was not the cause of either oppression! The love of money was.

Neither the Bible nor the Qur'an address the issue of "racism". Neither the Bible nor the Qur'an address the question: "Is one race innately more intelligent than other races?" The Bible does condemn the love of money, and the Qur'an does "curse" the people of tyranny (i.e. those who oppress the poor and powerless for the love of money and power). However, neither the Bible nor the Qu'ran tell us: "Is one race more intelligent than another?"

Certainly, 'Abdu'l-Baha believed that the Persian race was superior to all others in innate (inborn) intelligence and abilities. According to all English dictionaries, 'Abdu'l-Baha was a "racist".

Q. WHAT????? 'Abdu'l-Baha could NOT have been a racist! That is absurd! He loved all people! He advocated inter-marriage between black and white! He was against racism in all forms?

The original term "racism" was simply the belief that some races were "superior" in intelligence than others. Originally, the word has no connotations of hate, or exploitation, or terror, as the term does today. Racism (the belief that one race is superior to others) originally (in the time of 'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi) had nothing to do with "hate". Irish Cathoics "hate" Irish Protesants, but that has nothing to do with "racism". They have the same skin, the same last names, the same language.

August Forel was a scientific racist. He believed whites were superior to blacks in intelligence, but he had no "hate". He was 100% against oppression and tyranny in all it forms! 'Abdu'l-Baha called Forel a "lover of truth". His Tablet to August Forel is part of the Holy Writings; infallible Divine Scripture.

The rich whites oppressed poor whites. That is "tyranny" not racism. Racism is the belief that one race is "innately" (born) with superior abilities; such as intelligence, etc. 'Abdu'l-Baha believe His race was "superior". Period.

There are plenty of white people who think they are "superior" to other white people. That is Elitism; not racism.

The concept that "racism" must include oppression, and terrorism, and hate is a relatively modern one! The word "Racism" has changed since the 1950s just as the American word "gay" has changed. For a thousand years "gay" means "happy and care-free". But, about 1970, the word "gay" changed to "homosexual". The same is true with the word "racism". Originally, it merely means "the belief that some human races are more advanced or more intelligent than others" to what it means today: "To hate or exploit other races." In the days of 'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi "racism" DID NOT MEAN what it means today. In the days of Shoghi Effendi, racism meant "the belief that one race was innately more advanced/more intelligent than others". Shoghi Effendi never condemned racism! Not one time! He condemned racialism; the belief that one race, or nation, or group (such as the Nazis) had the right to exploit and oppress other races, or nations, or groups. He did condemn "racialism" but he never condemned "racism".

That's a fact, whether you wish to accept it or not.

Rich white business owners hired thugs to beat-up poor white workers. Is that "racism" or simply "tyranny" based upon the love of money?

The South African government under Apartheid oppressed blacks NOT because of "hate" or even "racism" but because of the love of money and power among the 3% of white South Africans that ruled the country. They oppressed blacks for the same reason the Normans oppressed the Anglo-Saxons: quality of life. Wealth. Power. The love of money and control!

About 5% of all people of all races have NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder). They love wealth. They strive for power and control of others. Not just whites. Blacks too. So do 5% of all Asians, all Turks, all Jews, all Arabs. They strive for wealth and power. The Qu'ran calls them "People of Tyranny". Baha'u'llah refers to them as "Demons". They oppress the poor and powerless of any race. They believe they are "superior" to all others; including those of their own race, their own tribe, and their own family. They are the "Wicked" on the Earth, and they exist in every race.

Q. But 'Abdu'l-Baha DID teach that blacks and whites were equal in intelligence. He states so in Promulgation of Universal Peace, pages 68, that black and whites were equal in all things; including intelligence. Is this not true?

According to statements made by the translator of 'Abdu'l-Baha, He stated:

"In this country, the United States of America, patriotism is common to both races; all have equal rights to citizenship, speak one language, receive the blessings of the same civilization, and follow the precepts of the same religion. In fact numerous points of partnership and agreement exist between the two races; whereas the one point of distinction is that of color. Shall this, the least of all distinctions, be allowed to separate you as races and individuals? In physical bodies, in the law of growth, in sense endowment, intelligence, patriotism, language, citizenship, civilization and religion you are one and the same. A single point of distinction exists -- that of racial color. God is not pleased with -- neither should any reasonable or intelligent man be willing to recognize -- inequality in the races because of this distinction." ('Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 67-68 )
These words are based upon a talk He gave in 1912; not based upon His words, but the words of His translator; a Persian Baha'i who spoke English and Farsi. 'Abdu'l-Baha did not speak English. These are the words of the translator!

Anyone familiar with real-time translation knows that rarely are they word-for-word translations! A translator translating a speech most often gives the "jist" of what the speaker is trying to say: seldom (if ever) word-for-word! Such word-for-word translations in real time only exist in courtrooms and perhaps the United Nations, and it is doubtful that the translator of 'Abdu'l-Baha would have been under such contraints.

We cannot be sure He said the exact words attributed to Him; because these were the words of the translator, not 'Abdu'l-Baha. Also, we cannot be sure that the woman who transcribed these words, got everything right.

Also, did African-American have "equal rights as citizens" in 1912? Either 'Abdu'l-Baha got it wrong (African-Americans did not have equal rights as citizens in 1912), or (more likely) His translator did, or the woman writing notes on the words of the translator did.

However, what 'Abdu'l-Baha wrote about Persians being innately superior were His Words; because they were written in a Tablet by an Infallible Pen:

"It should not be imagined that the people of Persia are inherently deficient in intelligence, or that for essential perceptiveness and understanding, inborn sagacity, intuition and wisdom, or innate capacity, they are inferior to others. God forbid! On the contrary, they have always excelled all other peoples in endowments conferred by birth." (Secret of Divine Civilization, p.9)
There is nothing in the Holy Writings or the Directives of the Guardian that state that the races are "equal" in innate intelligence. Indeed, 'Abdu'l-Baha clearly believed the Persians were innately superior to all other races.

No. Those were the words of his interpreter (a Persian Baha'i who spoke English). The Master did not speak English, and those who understand real-time interpreting know that seldom, if ever, is there any "word-for-word" real-time translations! Even when dealing with written documents, it takes good translators days or weeks to do a word-for-word accurate translation. There is simply no way that the interpreter would have given a word-for-word translation of 'Abdu'l-Baha's talk while He gave it! The grammer between Farsi and English is very dissimilar, and a word-for-word would not have made sense in English even if the translator had the time (which he would not have).

Word-for-word translation is left for courtrooms and documents. During speeches the interpreter tries to give people the "jist" of what the person is saying. Speeches happen much to fast for even an attempt at any word-for-word translation! It is never word-for-word. Also, the speech of 'Abdu'l-Baha was transcribed by a note-taker who was transcribing the words of the interpreter; not the words of 'Abdu'l-Baha Himself.

Are translators and note-takers considered "infallible" in the Faith?

The only things we know for certain is that 'Abdu'l-Baha never wrote anything that the races were equal in intelligence. He wrote that the Persians were superior in "endowments conferred by birth".

Baha'is who use the 1912 talk in Promulgation of Universal Peace as "proof" that the Baha'i Faith teaches that the races are "equal in intelligence" are desperately grasping at the flimsy and most narrow of straws.

Q. But isn't the Curse of Canaan RACIST? It teaches that one group can rightfully oppress another group?

Actually, the Curse of Canaan teaches that one lineage (lin-edge) or bloodline was cursed by the Prophet Noah to be "servants" to other bloodlines (that of Sham and Japheth). Has not history bourne this out?

1) There is nothing in the Bible nor the Qur'an that says that some races or nations are "superior" or "more evolved" than others. But the Bible and Qur'an does say that certain lineages (bloodlines) are "cursed" by God, and the Canaanite bloodline is the prime example.

2) The Manifestations of God have all power! Their mere Words can "curse" an individual, a city, a tribe, a nation, or a bloodline; such as Noah did to the lineage (bloodline) of Canaan; for whatever reason they wish, or no reason. They have all power. Who can say "You can't do that!"? Their Words are the Words of God!

3) The Curse of Canaan nowhere says "The sons of Shem and Japheth are more intelligent than the sons of Canaan". All the Curse of Canaan says is that the Canaanites (all those with the blood of Canaan in them) shall be the "servant of servants" to the sons of Shem and the sons of Japheth.

Q. Is it NOT against the Justice of God to punish the children, and great-great-great-great grandchildren, for the sins one man committed?

The Bible says: "I am the LORD thy God and a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." (Exodus 20:5)

"Our fathers have sinned, and are not [alive any longer]; and we have bourne [being punished for] their iniquities." (Lamantations of Jeremiah 5:7)

Shoghi Effendi wrote (in his own hand):

"Islam, at once the progenitor and persecutor of the Faith of Bahá'u'lláh, is, if we read aright the signs of the times, only beginning to sustain the impact of this invincible and triumphant Faith. We need only recall the nineteen hundred years of abject misery and dispersion which they, who only for the short space of three years persecuted the Son of God, have had to endure, and are still enduring. We may well ask ourselves, with mingled feelings of dread and awe, how severe must be the tribulations of those who, during no less than fifty years, have, "at every moment tormented with a fresh torment" Him Who is the Father, and who have, in addition, made His Herald--Himself a Manifestation of God--to quaff, in such tragic circumstances, the cup of martyrdom."(28 March 1941, written by Shoghi Effendi to the Bahá'ís of the World, published in The Promised Day Is Come (Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1980), pp. 99-100) [3]
Shoghi Effendi wrote that the Jews suffered for 1900 years because some of their ancestors persecuted the Son of God for three years! Why were all Jews for 1900 years under a "Divine Curse"?

Because...they were! If not, then Shoghi Effendi was wrong in what he wrote, and he was not infallible in his writings.

So, the answer is, God punishes the children for the sins of the fathers. He has. He does. This is an important lesson to learn for any parent.

The Curse of Canaan had no "time limit". That means the Curse of servitude remains until a Manifestation of God "atones" for it.

Look at His Holiness Moses! He asked Pharoah to set the Israelites free, and Pharoah refused; so all the Egyptians were cursed with the 10 Plagues. Not only Pharoah's son died, but all the firstborn sons of the Egyptians died. The Israelites were spared.

Here again, all the Egyptians suffered for the sins of one man. All came under a "Divine Curse" because of the pride and arrogance of their leader.

Q. Didn't Christ come to teach Humanity that we are all equal, and no people, or race, or tribe, or lineage (bloodline) is under any Divine Curse?

Where did you get that? The clear blue sky?

The Jews were the descendants of Judah, a son of Jacob (Israel). The Jews in the time of Jesus called the Canaanites by the term of "dogs"; a meaning "lowly servants".

The Gospels say:

21 ¶ Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the acoasts of Tyre and Sidon.
22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs. 27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table. 28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour. (Matthew chapter 15)
Q. But, doesn't this PROVE that Jesus didn't want Canaanites to be considered "dogs"?

No! It proves just the opposite! Jesus affirmed that the Canaanites were "dogs" (lowly servants) but added that He (Christ) was sent to them too!

The Canaanite woman could have said, "You Jesus, oh you are a Raaaaciiiiiiiist for callling me and my race 'dogs'!" But, she didn't, she affirmed the Curse of Canaan, but added that even dogs (servants) have the right to the crumbs of their masters (Semites).

Jesus was so impressed with the humility of this Canaanite woman, and He caused the woman's daughter to be healed of her affliction (yes...a real miracle).

Baha'is would have MUCH preferred if Jesus said something like this:

>>How DARE you say that this woman is a dog! She is a child of God, equal in every respect to you! All of us are equal in any way. There is no Master, and no Servant! There is no Curse of Canaan, it is all a myth, never happened!<<
The Unitarian-Universalist "Jesus"-- that so many Baha'is "love" said this (created in the imaginations of foolish men and women)--said this, but the REAL Jesus, the One Who lived and breathed, and walked and worked miracles, never did!

It is time for Baha'is to "let go" of the UU "Jesus" who never existed, and accept the REAL Jesus Who truly did exist, and we have His words in the Gospels. And, in the very Words of Jesus, the Canaanites were "dogs" (lowly servants to serve Shem and Japheth), but still deserving of the Good News.

Q. Maybe the Jews were not "ready" to think of Canaanites as equals? Perhaps this is why Jesus seems to confirm the Cuse of Canaan status, but, in reality, He was totally against it! Perhaps He knew the Jews weren't ready for such advanced teachings?

Then Jesus was a liar and deceiver! That would be like 'Abdu'l-Baha saying: "Negroes should be the servants of whites!" then, years later saying, "I never really MEANT that, but the whites were not ready for higher teachings!" Absurd!

Some Baha'is will use what is called "Mental Gymnastics" in order to try to twist the Gospels into what they "want" them to say, rather than what they actually say. This is because some Baha'is try to always conform to "political-correctness" (invented by sinful men and women) instead of conforming their beliefs to what Holy Write (Bible, Quran, Holy Writings) clearly say. This is truly sad.

Q. Wasn't Jesus' divine mission to unit cities, to write a book of laws, and improve the status or minorities and women?

Where does it say that?

Not in the Holy Writings.

Not in the Pilgrim's Notes.

None of the Central Figures, nor Shoghi Effendi, ever declared that Jesus came to "improve the status of minorities and women". Jesus authored no "Book of Laws"!

If you want to know what Jesus did, read the New Testament. His mission was NOT to "improve the status of minorities and women" (He did neither), nor to "unite cities" (whatever that means), nor to write a "book of laws" (He wrote nothing). He came as the Lamb of God to offer His Blood on the Cross as atonement for the sins of all mankind. That was His one and only Divine Mission.

Q. Did not the Mormons ban all black people from the Mormon Priesthood and Mormon Temples for 130 years? Is it not RACIST to ban others from anything based upon skin color?

Actually, the Priesthood-Ban was based upon "lineage (lin-edge) or "bloodline" not skin color. Black-skinned Figians, Aboriginals, Melanesians, and East Indians, had no such "ban". It applied to anyone that Mormon leaders considered to be "of the blood of Ham" (i.e. Canaanites/Cainites). Certainly they considered all black Africans of the blood of Ham. But they even banned men with blonde hair and blue eyes; if they had any "Canaanite" blood in them.

By "Priesthood" Mormons do not mean "learned class" as is the Baha'i term. By "Priesthood" they mean the "supernatural power" that Jesus gave to His apostles so they would have "power" to preach the Gospel, to baptize, and heal the sick. But Jesus told His apostles:

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." (Matthew 7:6)
By "dogs" Jesus meant the Canaanites. The Jews referred to the Canaanites as "dogs" (lowly servants), and Jesus was a Jew and accepted the Curse of Canaan.

By "swine" Jesus meant the Gentiles (non-jews); such as the Romans and Greeks. The Jews referred to them as "swine" because they were ritually unclean.

What was this "holy" thing that Jesus did NOT want His apostles giving to the Canaanites? The Gospel Message? No! The Priesthood? Yes! There can be no other explanation that makes any sense at all.

Q. But, this must be a false translation! Jesus would have NEVER referred to people as "dogs" and "swine"?

Where did you get that? You can check all translations, and the original Greek, and the original Aramaic. Jesus referred to Canaanites as "dogs" and Gentiles as "swine" just as all other Jews in His day did. Jesus was not "politically-correct".

Q. Isn't God color-blind?

The Cainites and Sethites were of the very same "Adamic" race; the same color skin. Canaan had the same skin-color as did Noah his grandfather. One of the sons of Canaan was Cush, and some Cushites (descendants of Cush) migrated into black Africa. The black African blood was not "cursed", but the Cushite Adamic blood was!

If an Adamic "Cushite" man married a black "Negro" woman, then their children would be under the Curse of Canaan; NOT because of the Negro blood, but because of the Cushite blood--because Cush was the son of Canaan, the son of Egyptus, the daughter (descenant) of Cain.

The Canaanites have various skin color=from white skin to very black skin; because the Canaanites intermingled with whites Europeans (such as the case with the Berbers) and with black Africans.

So, skin-color is irrelevant, but lineage (bloodline) is totally relevant.

Q. Perhaps the Curse of Canaan applied only to Canaan, and not to his descendants?

If that was the case, Jesus would NOT have referred to the Canaanite woman as a "dog". I don't think He was being sarcastic (there is no sarcasm in Hebrew culture), nor lying. He said what He meant, and meant what He said.

The Canaanites "served" the Semites (Shem) and Japhethites (Japheth) for thousands of years. That is a fact of human history.

Q. So, do you believe that Canaanites should still be the slaves or servants of the Semites and Japhethites?

No! Because Baha'u'llah came to "atone" for the Curse of Canaan. He offered a "ransom" for the Curse of Canaan. That is why He wrote:

"The Ancient Beauty hath consented to be bound with chains that mankind may be released from its bondage, and hath accepted to be made a prisoner within this most mighty Stronghold that the whole world may attain unto true liberty. He hath drained to its dregs the cup of sorrow, that all the peoples of the earth may attain unto abiding joy, and be filled with gladness. This is of the mercy of your Lord, the Compassionate, the Most Merciful." (Gleanings pp.99-100)
God is Just, but He is also Merciful. Baha'u'llah was God's Mercy for those in "chains". He suffered in the Siyah Chal (Black Pit) for four months; to atone for the Curse of Canaan--to "pay" for the sins of those Covenant-Breaking spirits.

If one takes the day-for-a-year (a "day" is symbolic for a year) principle. Moses wrote:

"And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms, until your carcasses be wasted in the wilderness. After the number of the days in which you searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years..." (Numbers 14:33,34a)
In other words, the Israelites spied out the land of Canaan for forty days, and decided not to invade (went against the commandment of the LORD), to the LORD cursed them with "forty years" of wandering in the desert.

The Prophet Ezekiel wrote:

"Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity. For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year" (Ezekiel 4:4-6).
Here the LORD (via His Prophet) declares a punishment for Israel (the 10 Northern tribes) and Judah (the 2 southern tribes) because they commiited "iniquity" for 390 years (in the case of Israel) and 40 years (in the case of Judah), so the LORD requires that the Prophet "atone" for this iniquity by laying down on his left side for 390 days and his right side for 40 days.

The LORD required Ezekiel to "atone" for the sins of Isarel (northern kingdom) and Judah (southern kingdom) by lying on his side for many days.

Baha'u'llah "atoned" for the Curse of Canaan in the Siyah Chal (Black Pit). Baha'u'llah suffered in Siyah Chal for 4 months. A Muslim month has 28 days. Four times 28 is 112. Change 112 days to years. Add 112 eyars to 1853, and one comes to 1965.

What happened in 1965?

1) The Civil Rights Amendment was passed in the U.S. finally making black Americans "equal" (at least in theory) to white Americans.
2) Just about all black African nations became independent from European control.
3) Identured Servitude (i.e. continued black slavery in Saudi Arabia and Yemen) was abolished.
4) Mormons leaders decide to end the "ban" on Negroes entering the Mormon priesthood and temples. They send missionaries to Africa, but the missionaries are rejected by black African governments and told to go home. Church leaders decide to postpone the ending of the ban until 1978.

In the Apocalyse (Book of Revelation), John is on the isle of Patmos (off of Turkey) and the Angel of Jesus visits him and shows him a vision (a literal/historical non-phyiscal event).

In the vision, John sees a Slain Lamb with seven horns and seven eyes, upon the Throne of God. This is the Lamb of God who "taketh away the sins of the world." (John 1:29).

Christians believe the Lamb of God is Jesus, and Jesus alone. But, what is the meaning of the 7 horns and 7 eyes? Christians can't tell you. I will tell you what I think.

The "7 horns" and "7 eyes" represents seven souls. I believe these represent "Seven" Who came to atone for our sins. Jesus is certainly One, but not the "Only" One Who atoned for the sins of the world.

Baha'u'llah suffered in Siyah Chal to "atone" for the Curse of Canaan. That is my firm belief. He suffered in chains so the mankind could find true liberty.

Q. Okay, but what does this all have to do with World Peace, Race Unity, the Equality of Men and Women, and Esperanto-for-all? What do some old curses in the Bible have to do the Baha'i Faith today?

The Scriptures "mean" something! They contain history (like Noah cursing Canaan) and "stories" (like Jonah and the Whale) in order to teach us how God deals with human souls. If Baha'is learn only of God's Mercy, then they won't understand His Justice. If they don't know about His Justice, then they are only getting "half" of the story. The Baha'i Faith is NOT a mere set of 12 "Principles" (as many Baha'is seem to think). If it was, we don't need God at all! We could promote the Principles and forget all about the Prophets. But, the Prophets came to tell us that our actions on this planet, in this Material Realm, have consequences for us; good ones, and absolutely terribly ones, in the Afterlife. If we don't learn that lesson, then we have learned nothing at all.

Q. But isn't the Cause of God about love and unity; not about old curses and punishments and judgments?

The purpose of all the Messengers of God is to be "Warners" of God's impending Judgment where He dispenses out His Justice, but also about God's Mercy and how to obtain that Mercy.

Unfortunately, most Baha'is have absolutely "no fear" of the Afterflife or of God's Judgments. They seem to be under the illusion that God judges nobody, condemns nobody, accepts everybody "as they are". This is pure fantasy!

The Curse of Canaan was God's Just Judgment on souls that "sinned" in the Primordial World. As punishment, they came to this world "judged" already--to be born into a certain lineage (bloodline).

But God is Merciful, and He sent His Mercy to atone for their primordial sins, so that they may no longer feel His Just Wrath upon this in the material realm.

You can read more about this in The Earth-is-Hell View.

Q. Do you believe that those with the blood of Canaan in them are more inclined to evil than others?

To even suggest that would bring upon me "politically-correct Baha'i wrath". I would be shunned for life---nay---for eternity!

But I can say this:

1) In Algeria, for example, the Arabs and Berbers have "race riots" all the time (the have the same features, the same dark hair and eyes, and same skin color--ruddy). The Arabs say the Berbers are criminals, and the Berbers say the Arabs are prejudiced against them without a cause (sound familiar?).

According to some in France, most of its violent-crime in France comes from its Berber Muslim population. Again, is this just white-racist propaganda, or "may" there be some truth in it?

About a fourth (25%) of the Sicilians are really Berbers (although they speak Italian and have Italian names). Sicily is the birthplace of the Mafia, and violent crime in Sicily is quite high compared with the Italian penninsula. Again...just mere "coincidence"?

Recently, an Austrian geneticist tracked down the living relatives of Hitler in the United States and Europe, to get samples of their DNA. He got some. He did DNA tests to see what Hitler's ancestry was. He concluded:

"Hitler’s dominant haplogroup, E1b1b, is relatively rare in Western Europe - but strongest in some 25 percent of Greeks and Sicilians, who apparently acquired the genes from Africa: Between 50 percent and 80 percent of North Africans share Hitler’s dominant group, which is especially prevalent among in the Berber tribes of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, and Somalis." ("DNA tests reveal Hitler's Jewish and African Roots,", Aug. 28, 2010, p.1 online)
Hitler was a descendant of Germanic tribes as well as Berber slaves of the Romans. When slavery was outlawed (by a Christian emperor), some of these Berber ex-slaves settled in Austria.

The Somalis are, of course, Afro-Cushites (black African with some Cushite lineage---i.e. Canaanites). Are Somalis "black" (i.e. more inclined to evil) than others? You already know the answer.

The Berbers live in North Africa, but they are not "Negroes". They are of the ruddy (light-reddish) "Adamic" race. They look exactly like the Arabs with whom they live. But the Arabs are the children of Shem. The Berbers are the children of Phut (Poot), son of Canaan. The Arabs say: "The Berbers are all liars, thieves, and criminals!" and the Berbers say: "The Arabs are racist, and they are prejudiced, and they discriminate against us for no cause other than we are a differnet race!"

Does this sound at all familiar to you?

Q. You claim that Joseph Smith's Revelation in The Book of Moses that "the seed of Cain were black" means they were 'inclined to evil'? Isn't that 'racist'?

No! A "racist" is one who believes their own race is "superior" to all others. I DO NOT believe my race is superior to all others! I believe the Persian race is superior to all others; because Baha'i Holy Scripture says that! 'Abdu'l-Baha wrote that, and His Pen is Infallible!

The Bible and Qur'an speaks of Divine Curses on lineages (leen-ages) or "bloodlines". That is not "racist". That is simply stating that a certain lineage (Cainite/Canaanite) is more inclined to evil. A Canaanite may have white skin, or red, or brown, or black. He may be a Caucasoid (like the Berbers of North Africa), or a Negroid (like the Tutsies of Rwanda). This is not about "race" but about "lineage" (bloodline) or what we now call "genes".

Some "bloodlines" seem to produce many criminals, and other "bloodlines" seem to produce few or none. Do we observe this among human bloodlines? Do mobsters produce other mobsters? Do gangsters usually produce more gangsters? Do criminals often produce more criminals? Is there a "genetic" component?

The Baha'is will say, of course, that all bloodlines are "equal" in every respect, and that if one bloodline produces more criminals, it is merely because that bloodline has been "oppressed" and "less educated" than the others; that there is no genetic factor that causes an inclination for evil.

Really? What scientific papers prove that? Or, is that just "politically-correct" propaganda?"propaganda".

Q. Are you saying that Canaanites are more inclined to evil than non-Canaanites, because Canaanites are, according to a Revelation to Joseph Smith, the descendants of Cain, and thus "black" (included to evil)

I am saying this is possible! I am saying "maybe". I am saying that there "may be" a genetic factor in this, and if religion and science disagree, Baha'is are obliged to go with science.

Q. Joseph Smith is not considered to be a prophet, so why believe his Revelation (Book of Moses) is inspired of God?

Because there is such a thing as "Seers"; ordinary human beings who see angels and receive Divine Revelation. Prophets are INfallible Revelators. Seers are fallible. Shoghi Effendi believed Joseph Smith to be a "Seer" but did not require all Baha'is to believe this, or he would have said so in a letter. So, The Book of Moses "may" be inspired Revelation, or maybe not. The Cainites (all the Canaanites are the descendants or Cain the son of Adam who murdered Abel) "may" be more inclined to evil. Or maybe not. We cannot say they are, and we cannot say they are not. We can only say "maybe" they are, or "maybe" they are not. If Joseph Smith was a true Seer...then they are.

Q. But hasn't science determined there is no genetic factor in criminality?

No! In fact, until until the late 1940s, all scientific studies supported a genetic factor. However, since then, no "science" has been done in this area; because of political reasons. Scientists who even "suggest" there are genetic factors, will face censor, loss of job and careers, lost of tenur. It is now "taboo" (absolutely forbidden) even to discuss the issue; like discussing "race" in sports. If a scientist even discusses it, he or she will face harsh reprisals that will probably end their career and reduce their Ph.D. to the value of the paper it was printed on.

Q. Are you trying to suggest that African-Americas, since they are from Afro-Hamitic tribes (and are therefore Canaanites and Cainites), are more inclined to evil than others?

To even "suggest" that African-Americans commit more crime and violence than white Americans because of some "Canaanite-Cainite-lineage" would bring shunning from just about all Baha'is, and perhaps some violence from a few African-American Baha'is, so I would NEVER even suggest that!

Will science ever discover a "gene" that proves those with this "gene" inclines one to evil or violence? What if science discovers such a gene that inclines one to violence, and discovers this gene is more prevelant in some "groups" (races/lineages) than others? Will the Baha'is say "Oh, we must accept this, because when religion and science conflicts, we must accept science?"

GOD FORBID! The Baha'is will never accept it, not in a thousand years, whether science proves it or not; NOT because it would conflict with Baha'i Principles (it doesn't), but because it conflicts with "Political-Correct" thinking (i.e. Liberalism) the Western Friends have been indoctrinated in high school, college, and university.

The "politically-correct" thing to say is this:

African-Americans (and all Africans) are FAR LESS violent than whites. Rape and violent crime is practically unknown in the African-American Community and in black Africa. Whosoever says otherwise, is a white RACIST! When African-Americans do commit crimes it is merely because they are are trying to feed their children, but denied jobs because of racism, or they are responding to white-racist threats or disrespect. There is no "gene" in Canaanite DNA that makes them any more inclined to evil than anyone else. All the races are equal in every respect: intelligence, height, athletic ability, etc. All the races are EQUAL in every single respect. To even suggest otherwise is RACIST!

That is the only "safe" thing to say. So, I must say it. For I am not permitted and cannot say otherwise.

Q. But how can you say that Baha'is would EVER be violent towards others, nor threatening, even if they disagree with you vehemently?

Because I've already experienced it! But I agree, those were not "Baha'is" even though they held blue cards that said they were.

But, I believe, a "Baha'i" is not someone who has a blue card with a membership number. A "Baha'i" is not someone who agrees with the "12 Principles" but "picks and chooses" what ordinances to obey and which to ignore. In my opinion, a "Baha'i" is one who accepts all the teachings of the Central Figures, and all the Divine Ordinances, without accepting some, and ignoring others.

Q. Do you believe that those with Canaanite bloodline are the "wicked" described in the Bible and the "People of Tyranny" described in the Qur'an and the "Demons" decribed by Baha'u'llah as existing in "this Netherworld"?

No! If some bloodlines are "black"--no reference to skin color--but meaning "more inclined to evil" than others, I do not believe these are the "Wicked" that the Bible refers to, nor "People of Tyranny" that the Qur'an refers to, nor the "Demons" that Baha'u'llah was referring to.

I believe the "Demons" that Baha'u'llah was referring to are NOT the Canaanites, but those with NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder), and one can find those with NPD in equal measure in all the races and lineages (bloodlines) of mankind.

A good example of an NPD sufferer was Siyyid Muhammad Ali Isfahani, the "Anti-Christ" of the Baha'i Dispensation. He is the one whose "lies" caused Suhb-i-Azal to mistrust his own Illustrious Brother. His lies led to the deaths of many innocent Baha'is.

The last Shah of Iran, was a very good example of someone with NPD.

Saddam Hussein is a good example.

Osama bin Ladin is a good example.

The "Wicked" (people with NPD) exist in every race, and in every lineage (bloodline).

Q. Why bring up ancient curses and bloodlines--things that are today totally irrelevant?

Because...if we hear only of God's Mercy, then we are getting only half the Message. I want all of it. There are things to be learned in history, and if we ignore them, then we lose the Message which is this: if we ignore the Prophets of God, God's Mercy, then we must feel His Wrath!

The Baha'i Message is NOT merely the "12 Principles"! The Baha'i Message is NOT merely "race unity" and "world peace" and "equality of men and women" and "Esperanto for all"! To present the Baha'i Message as a mere set of "12 Principles" is to distort it, cheapen it, water-it-down, and make it merely another Liberal movement, just another NGO.

The Baha'i Message includes all the TRUTH that is contained in the Nine Revealed Religions! It is not a set of "12 Principles"; although most Baha'is present it to the world as a set of 12 Principles.

One reason I left the Mormon Church, is that I got to know Mormons too well. Most Mormons are "Pickers and Choosers". Most of the single Mormon men I knew "ignored" the Law about "No Sex Before Marriage". They didn't like it, so, they simply ignored it. That is Hypocrisy.

When I became a Baha'i, I knew of the Divine Law against gossip: "Do not gossip". It was "akin" to murder. I liked that. But, I have come to find, that many Baha'is "do" gossip, all the time. And, like the African-Americans (who "heard" from everyone in their Community "Mormons are racists--they hate black folks--they believe that black folks are the children of the Devil") the Baha'is will accept and believe and share false rumors if they hear them from enough people--of they trust those people. Many Baha'is do spread "false rumors" all the time, because they believe: "Well, this MUST BE TRUE, or the people who told me--whom I trust--would NEVER have shared it with me!"

I once gave a Fireside in Salt Lake City Utah on how Joseph Smith prophesied of Baha'u'llah. Two Baha'i men took exception, and repeatedly accursed me of lying, and having some evil hidden agenda. I told them that I had spoken to Martha Gilpatrick when a Mormon missionary in San Jose, California, back in 1983. One older man, a Persian Baha'i, kept interrupting me and saying: "Oh, YOU ARE A LIAR, I know Martha--SHE NEVER SAID THAT! You NEVER met her father! YOU ARE A LIAR!" The other man would say, "Shoghi Effendi NEVER said that Joseph Smith was a Seer, NEVER!"

They kept getting more and more angry until finally I had to leave, and I as was walking out the older Persian man said, "You want some money?"

In any case, I had to get photocopies of Pigrim's Notes where Shoghi Effendi called Joseph Smith a "Seer" who "had high standards". Then, I got a letter from Martha Gilpatrick affirming I did meet her and I did speak with her father (Charles Wolcott--member of the House) over the phone in 1983. I made 9 copies, and mailed them to the LSA of Salt Lake City.

Did the two Persian men repent? Apologize? No, they continued to spread "false rumors" about me. Why? I proved they had falsely accused me. That embarassed them. So, instead of repenting, they came up with "more" lies about me.

I discovered later that the men belonged to a small group of Baha'is in Utah who studied Anti-Mormon literature (which is--I can assure you--as reliable as Anti-Baha'i literature in Iran), and they wanted to "stop" their Community from using the prophesies of Joseph Smith to attract Mormons. The way they planned to do that was to attack me, and interrupt me, and insult me until I left. And it worked! Their plan worked. They were successful, and the Salt Lake Baha'i Community has not grown in decades. The few Mormon Seekers who stumble in are soon turned away. The Baha'is have "given up" on Mormons altogether; not blaming themselves or the "method" they use (i.e. invite Mormons to come hear a discussion on world peace), but blaming the Mormons as being "not ready" to hear the Baha'i Message. The only growth is other Baha'is moving into the area.

I believe that the two Persian "Baha'i" men in Salt Lake City, in 1996, who constantly interrupted me, insulted me, mocked me, called me a "liar" after I only tried to help them attract Mormon Seekers, both suffer from Narcissitic Personality Disorder. They insulted me and mocked me for over an hour. All I was trying to do was to help the Utah Baha'i Community attract Mormon Seekes. I was punished for it, and still am to this day. When I later _proved_ they had falsely accused me of lying, they did not repent, but spread new lies about me!

The two Persian Baha'i men in Salt Lake City who mocked me and lied about me were wealthy. While I was a Mormon for many years, I had roommates and knew other Mormon men who were rich, or the sons of rich men. Almost all of them were very haughty, pround, arrogrant very immoral in their private lives, yet they believed I was their inferior in every way. They were sure they were the very Chosen of God; yet they lied, they were immoral, and they looked down on the poor as sinners unworthy to tie their shoes. I'm reminded of the Words of Baha'u'llah:

"Know ye in truth that wealth is a mighty barrier between the seeker and his desire, the lover and his beloved. The rich, but for a few, shall in no wise attain the court of His presence nor enter the city of content and resignation." (Persian Hidden Words No.53)
The two Persian Baha'i men who mocked me, interrupted me, and called me a "liar" for over an hour, did not condemn me because I was poor. They did so because they did not want Baha'is of Utah using the prophecies of Joseph Smith to attract Mormon Seekers. Outwardly, they would say: "The Baha'i Message is for everyone!" But, secretly, they would say among themsevles: "Mormons are unworthy of the Message, so let us make sure they do not hear it!"

Their child-like tantrums succeeded, and the Salt Lake Community decided the only way to "keep peace" was to submit to the will of these two Persian men. When Mormon Seekers ask "What does the Faith has to say about Joseph Smith?" the Baha'is tell them: "Nothing!" Perhaps this is why the Baha'is of Salt Lake have basically "given up" on attracting Mormons to the Faith.

One Baha'i couple in Utah has pioneered for thirty years, and have made "one" convert to the Faith. And they have claimed a great victory! The Baha'is of Utah will continue reap the whirlwind, because of those two Persian "Baha'i" men. The Faith is Utah is not growing--except for Baha'is moving into the state. The Sihks of Utah, who do not seek converts, make more Mormon converts than the Baha'is. Other religions in Utah, who don't seek converts, make more converts; because these two Persian "Baha'is" are prejudiced against Mormons, don't want them in the Faith, and will use any lie or false rumor or tactic (tantrums) to make sure the status quo remains the same.

As I think of those who started the false rumors in the African-American Community ("Mormons think black folks are the children of the Devil") and as I think of the Baha'is who spread false rumors about me, I'm reminded of the following Verse:

"Cursed be the liars who are in the gulf of Ignorance." (Qu'ran 51:10-11)
Twenty-thousands Bábís lost their lives because of liars who spread false rumors, and the ignorant who believe those rumors; because they hear them from people they trust.

How many Baha'is in Iran have been beaten, raped, jailed, or hung, because of the spreading (and believing) of false rumors?

I encourage you to not be ignorant! Do not believe a "rumor"--even from one you trust--because they may be believing a falsehood without knowing it. Most African-Americans believe that Mormons are "racist" and "Mormon believe black folks are the children of the Devil". These are BIG LIES! They believe in in these "lies". Why? Because someone they "trust" (a mother, a brother, a friend, etc.) tells them so. But that mother, or brother, or friend is likewise deceived; believing the false witness of a liar who invented the false rumor in the first place.

The Baha'is should "try" to be different. Unfortunately, too many are not.

Summary and Conclusion

1*Noah was a Manifesation of God Who truly existed.

2*There were great floods all over the earth about 2800 B.C. when a comet hit the Indian Ocean.

3*Most primitive cultures have flood stories--more evidence there was intense flooding all over the planet at one time.

4*There is nothing in the Holy Writings to suggest that the Flood Story is "myth" or "mere parable" or that Noah didn't have three sons named Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

5*Letters written "on behalf of" Shoghi Effendi may be "authoritative" but one should never view them as "infallible" or equal to Holy Writ written by Prophets. The Secretaries of the Guardians were "not" prophets minor or otherwise.

6*'Abdu'l-Baha believed that Adam existed, and was not born of human parents, and lived about 6,000 years ago (about two hundred years before the massive flooding caused by the Indian Ocean Comet in 2800 B.C.)

7*According to Baha'u'llah, Moses wrote the Torah and the Jews have not corrupted the text.

8*According to Moses, in Genesis, Noah cursed Canaan and his descendants with perpetual servitude to the Shem and Japheth and their descendants.

9*The sons of Canaan moved into Egypt, Canaan, North Africa (Berbers), Yemen, and also into black Africa from Yemen. They fused with native "Negro" tribes and created the Afro-Hamitic tribes.

10*Over millennia the Afro-Hamitic tribes migrated into West, Central, and East Africa, and intermingled with other tribes, and it was from these tribes that the Arabs (Semites), and the Portugues, Spanish, French, and British (Japhethites) got their black African slaves.

11*The Curse of Canaan is NOT "racist" because there is no doctrine in it that says Canaanites are "inferior" to others; only that they are (or were) under a Divine Curse. If Divine Curses on individuals, houses (extended families), tribes, cities, and nations are "racist" then the Bible and Qu'ran is FULL of God-created RACISM.

12*A Divine Curse upon an individual, village, city, tribe, or nation, lineage (bloodline), or race, is NOT "racist"--since the Divine Curse originates from God and not from man.

13*The Curse of Canaan was abrogated by the four-month (112 day) suffering of Baha'u'llah in the Siyah Chal. He "atoned" for the Canaanites and all the oppressed of the world.

14*Both the Bible and the Qur'an and the Holy Writings of the Central Figures and the Pilgrim's Notes of Shoghi Effendi do teach that the sins of the fathers are placed upon the heads of the children.

15*Baha'u'llah referred to our material realm as the "Netherworld" (Hell) where the demons (wicked) dwell. In other worlds, the material realm is "Hell"; where the Sun burns our skin, and where we experience pain, sorrow, injustice, separation of loved ones, aging, punishment by "demons" (i.e. People of Tyranny), and death.

16*There is nothing in the Holy Writings that clearly teaches the Consecutive Incarnation Doctrine (i.e. the unsaved go to another material planet after death). It is Personal Belief. The Qur'an says that when our skins are burnt and worn-out in Hell-fire, we shall be given "new skins" to continue to feel the punishment. I personally believe this refers to Consecutive Incarnation (one mortal life per material world until one is "saved"--i.e. born again).

17*The early Babis believed in the reincarnation of the Souls of the Prophets (They do not have human souls--their Souls are the Names of God); such as Mollah Husayn Bushru'i being the "return" (reincarnation) of the Prophet Muhammad. Shaykh Ahmad-i-Ahsa'i (a Seer) taught that the Prophets and Chosen Ones "return" in every Dispenation; sometimes as two people. Both The Báb and Quddús (18th Letter of the Living) both claimed to be the "return" of the Imaam Mehdi.

18*August Forel clearly believed in "racism" (scientific racism); the belief that whites (Caucasians) were superior in intelligence to blacks (i.e. Negroes) based upon craniel capacity and other factors. Forel maintained this belief after becoming a Baha'i, and there is no evidence that he ever gave up this belief. Forel was strongly against oppression and hate (tyranny) of all kinds, and never viewed scientific racism as oppressive or hateful or prejudicial in any way.

19*There is nothing in the Holy Writings or the Directives of the Guardian (written by himself or on his behalf), that teaches or implies that the races are "equal" in intelligence. The "talk" by 'Abdu'l-Baha that says this, but this talk is based not upon His exact words but upon a the words of a translator as recorded by a female Baha'i stenographer. Real-time verbal translation rarely means word-for-word translation (except in courts of law and perhaps the United Nation). In general use, verbal translations are not "literal" but the translator tries to give the "jist" of what the person is saying. To quote this talk as "proof" that 'Abdu'l-Baha believed in the "equality of intelligence in races" is to grasp at the most weak and flimsy of straws.

20*'Abdu'l-Baha cleary wrote in a Tablet (Scripture) that Persians are innately superior to all other races in the endowments confirred at birth. This would make 'Abdu'l-Baha a scientific racist just as August Forel was; the belief that one race is innately superior to others, with no connotations of hate, oppression, violence, discrimination, exploitation, or prejudice.

21*The Klu Klux Klan terrorized blacks in the South NOT because they were racists (the white founders of the NAACP were also scientific racists--99% of all educated white men before the 1940s were "scientific racists"), but because they wanted to control and reduce black power so they could continue to exploit their cheap labor. The KKK "terrorized" blacks for the same reason that Henry Ford paid white strike-breakers to "terrorize" white auto-workers on stike: the love of money! It has nothing to do with "racism" (the belief one race is superior to another) The KKK was composed of wealthy white plantation owners and their sons (and hired help), and many "wealthy" people have NPD. This is why Jesus said: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven".

22*The word "racism" had no connotations of hate or prejudice or discrimination whatsoever until the late 1950s. "Racism" was simply a term that meant the philosophy, based upon scientific observations and studies, that some races were more intelligent than others (i.e. the brains of Asians were largest and the brains of Aboriginals were smallest, and cranial capacity denoted general intelligence).

23*In the late 1940s-mid-1950s journalists and politicians and other non-scientists began to confuse the term "racism" with "racialism" until finally "racism" now means what "racialism" meant in Shoghi Effendi's day: the belief that superior races can control, master, manipuate, exploit, and subjugate "inferior" races.

24*"Scientific Racism" is a term meaning that science has shown that some races are more intelligent than others; with absolutely no connotations of hate, or discrimination, or prejudice, or exploitation whatsoever. Before the 1950s, this term was simply known as "racism"--before that term was associated with hate, terror, exploitation, and discrimination.

25*The Nazis were NOT "racists" in the modern "Baha'i" and Liberal use of that term! They considered themselves "superior" because they were "stronger" (stonger willed--not stronger body nor even higher in intelligence) than other nations, including all other white European nations. The Nazis did NOT believe in "white supremacy" but in "Nordic Supremecy". Other white nations were to be their servants--equal to non-white races in their servitude. They were in fact "racialists" as Shoghi Effendi believed.

*26The belief in scientific racism--the belief that some races are innately more intelligent than others (with no connotations of segregation, oppression, prejudice, discrimination, hate)--does not contradict any Baha'i Teachings.

27*'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi taught and promoted "Racial Unity" (peace, amity, and brotherhood between all races) and not "Racial Equality" (all races are equal in all things--height, physical abilities, athletic abilities, culture, and intelligence).

28*Shoghi Effendi never condemned "racism" (the scientific belief that races differ in intelligence), which was taught in all Western universities at the time, including the two he attended (American Syrian College and Oxford). But he did condemn racialism (the belief that some races could dominate and exploit others because of their superiority).

29*Joseph Smith may have been a Seer, if so, then his Book of Moses is Divine Revelation in the same category as the Bhagavad Gita (inspired non-scripture). Joseph Smith was NOT a racist. He did not believe in "inherent" inferiority of Negroes. He was the first U.S. Presidential candidate (1843) to call for blacks being freed, educated, and given equal rights. He ordained black men to the Mormon Priesthood and let black Mormons into Mormon temples. It was Brigham Young who began to "ban" blacks from the priesthood and temples in 1848; based upon the "Curse of Cain" doctrine; that Negroes were the descendants of Canaan, the son of Ham, the son of Egyptus, the descendant of Cain. The priesthood-ban was lifted on June 8th, 1978.

30*If The Book of Moses is Revelation, then that would mean that the Canaanites are also the descendant of Cain via Egyptus, wife of Ham. Shoghi Effendi believed that Joseph Smith was a "Seer" but did not require others to believe this, or he would have said so in a letter.

31*The vast great majority of white Mormons (98%) are not "racist" in any way, shape or form! To view all Mormons as "racist" because Brigham Young and other early Mormon leaders in Utah were, is like believing all white Americans "today" are "racist" because George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and most American presidents were racists until recent times. Not only ABSURD, but also pre-judicial (to be pre-judiced is to pre-judge--to make false assumptions). The Baha'is are very guilty of this is regards to Mormons--pre-judging them constantly, and in total ignorance based upon false rumors deceived people have told them over the years.

32*Many false rumors and false assumptions exists about Mormons in the African-American community; similar to false rumors and false assumptions that exist about Baha'is in the Muslim world; based upon lies, false rumors, and prejudice. Many Baha'is are equally as guilty of this--falsely assuming that Mormons are "racist" based upon things they have "heard".

33*All "white folks" should not feel ashamed, or be "blamed" nor feel "guilty" for what some white men and black men did during the American slave trade. Black chiefs sold some of their black subjects to some white men for iron (money). No more than 3% of Southern white men were involved in the slave trade or owned black slaves. Why should "all white people" for all time be blamed for what 3% of Southern white men did? The black chiefs and their underlings are as much to blame as the white men involved in the slave trade. Both groups did so for the love of money. The black chiefs for iron. The white slavers for gold and silver.

34*To blame "all white folks" for what a few white men (and black chiefs and their minions) did to other blacks is like blaming ALL white people today for what the Nazis did to the Jews during WWII. ABSURD!

35*August Forel was a scientific racist and the first Baha'i that I can find who first presented "The 12 Principles" as "what Baha'is believe".

36*The "cause" of the oppression and domination of the poor and powerless (slavery, serfdom, etc.) are the 3% to 5% of people that the Bible calls the "Wicked" and the Qur'an calls "the People of Tyranny" and whom Baha'u'llah refers to as "Demons" in "this Netherworld". They exist in every race.

37* Even with all the "proof" presented here in this article, many Baha'is will say: "I don't care! To believe that God curses anyone is RAAAAAccciiiist! To believe that Canaanites were cursed is also RACIST!" Again, some will always been ignorant, and believe as TRUTH is whatsoever they wish to believe, the facts be damned!

*38 Baha'is who continue to try to "mesh" the Religion of God with Western Liberalism are in fact distorters of the Religion of God. If the Religion of God and Liberalism contradict on a certain point, then Baha'is should side with the Religion of God instead of siding with Liberalism and ignoring what the Religion of God says on that certain point.

39* To somehow view all white people as somehow jointly-responsible (The Joint-Responsiblity View) for what some (3%) white men (with the help of black chiefs) did during the black African slave trade is not only highly ignorant, but is itself racialist. The equivolent is like blaming all black people for black-on-white violence, or vice versa. A complete race cannot be blamed for the actions of a few "Wicked" who belong to that race. There are "People of Tyranny" in every race. And, as the Qur'an says:

"The curse of God be upon the People of Tyranny." (11:21)
40* Baha'is, or those who call themselves "Baha'is", who continue to spread rumors (things they think are true because they've heard them alot from alot of different people) about an individual, or a people (such as the Mormons), based on things they have "heard", are not only ignorant, but they violators of the Law of Baha'u'llah against the spreading of gossip; which is akin to murder! Such individuals are, indeed, the People of Tyranny.

Thank you! Go in Peace!

Questions for the Reader

1. Could the Curse of Canaan be true?

2. Does a curse upon a lineage (bloodline) contradict any Baha'i teaching or principle?

3. Did the 112 day suffering of Baha'u'llah in the Siyah Chal have any atoning value?

4. Was Canaanite servitude (including the black coastal slave trade) against the Will of God or part of His Divine Punishment?

5. Do Mormons believe (or have they ever believed) that black folks are the soul-less children of the Devil?

6. Who was the first United States Presidential candidate to advocate that blacks be freed, educated, and given equal rights?

7. Whom and what was Jesus referring to when He said "give not that which is holy to dogs"?

8. Was the "ban" on Canaanites (of whatever skin color) holding the Mormon priesthood, and from entering Mormon Temples (until 1978) "racist"?

9. Should all white people share in the "guilt and responsiblity" for the offenses against black Africans that were pepetuated by certain black African chiefs and white slavers and white slave-owners during the African slave trade (the Joint-Responsibility View)?

10. Was the scientific racism of August Forel a violation of the principle of Race Unity?

11. Is Race Unity the same thing as Racial Equality?

12. Did 'Abdu'l-Baha believe that all races are equal in "endowments conferred by birth"?

13. Has the English word "racism" changed its meanings over the years?

14. Did Shoghi Effendi condemn scientific racism, or racialism, or are these two terms the very same thing?

15. Should Mormons be the brunt of African-American hate, when they did not engage in the slave trade, did not author the Jim Crow laws, were not members or supporters of the KKK, did not segregate black Mormons, and allowed blacks to become Mormons (only banning them from the priesthood and temples)?

16. Should Baha'is believe and spread negative rumors about individuals or peoples, simply because they have heard such rumors from people they trust, and hear such rumors "alot"?

17. Could Joseph Smith be an inspired Seer, and his The Book of Moses (a Revelation of Joseph Smith) also be inspired of God?

18. Is it is proved that Canaanites are "more inclined to evil" than others, and would this contradict any of the Baha'i teachings or principles?

19. If Liberalism and the Holy Writings contradict each other on a certain point, should we side with Liberalism, or with the Word of God?

The belief that all races are "equal" in all things is a "myth" and political-propaganda, and is contradicted by 'Abdu'l-Baha Himself when He wrote that Persians are the superior race. It is time for the Baha'is to drop the "myths" and stick with the revealed Word of God. A.E.M.