Posts from the ‘摩門教’ Category

為何摩門教斯密約瑟「硬要」引進實施一夫多妻制?

為何摩門教斯密約瑟「硬要」引進實施一夫多妻制?

 

本文是 耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(摩門教)一夫多妻制及迫使其宣布結束的美國聯邦法律簡介   及  耶穌基督後期聖徒教會一夫多妻制編年大事記(摩門教多重婚姻初驗不合格系列)  的延伸補充。

John He 編著作

 

Joseph Smith Emma Hale Wife Polygamy

smith polygamy wives

耶穌基督後期聖徒教會/摩門教的一夫多妻制可說是摩門教最引人爭議的地方,也可說是摩門教的第一大負面(絕大部份教友亦深覺反感), 在美國社會上引起了廣泛的倫理、司法和風俗的爭議與糾紛。

摩門教的一夫多妻制的實踐是在1843年7月12日,由末世聖徒運動創始人斯密約瑟正式推出。

 

耶穌基督末世聖徒教會之信條(十三信條)是斯密約瑟1842年致函芝加哥的民主黨Chicago Democrat編輯“長“約翰溫特沃斯"Long" John Wentworth的一個小部分,並首次刊登在後期聖徒時間和季節Times and Seasons報紙。其中第12條這樣說: 我們信我們從屬於國王,總統,統治者和司法長官,要服從,敬重和維護法律[1]

 既然要” 要服從,敬重和維護法律[1]”, 為何末世聖徒運動創始人斯密約瑟硬要在1843年7月12日正式推出當時在伊利諾伊州是非法的一夫多妻制[2]?

mormon_polygamy

大多數歷史學家都同意,斯密約瑟,Jr(1805年至1844年),後期聖徒運動的創始人,教授實行一夫多妻制,並在他的一生中與許多婦女結婚。[3]

現在就讓我們一起尋幽探微吧! 一起找出為何摩門教斯密約瑟硬要引進實施一夫多妻制的原因吧!

先聲明一下, 本文之尋幽探微基本上是基於以下諸多個既然.(有點點點點多,可略看,有空再細腳嚼慢慢消化)

諸多個既然:

既然摩門教初驗不合格:耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(俗稱摩門教)的奠基—- 斯密約瑟(Joseph Smith, Jr.)第一次異象—-諸多版本矛盾,諸多疑義難解。

既然摩門教初驗不合格:耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(俗稱摩門教)的拱心石—-《摩門經》的「真實性」有超重大疑義,經不起檢驗。

既然摩門經的可能抄襲來源之一 —– Ethan Smith 的《View of the Hebrews (對希伯來人的看法)》

既然摩門經證人證詞有超重大疑義,經不起檢驗。

 既然深挖之後—- 摩門經的真正作者99.9%是雷格登瑟耐 (Sidney Rigdon) 。

 既然《摩門經》經不起 「計算機分析文本」(「作家文筆風格」)的檢驗—-摩門經是由多個十九世紀的作家所寫(斯伯丁-雷格登著作理論)。

 既然摩門經的真正作者是誰? —-斯伯丁-雷格登 是 摩門經作者理論。

 既然《摩門經》的來源(原始金頁片原文乃「改良埃及文」)矛盾離奇詭譎,其疑義大解析。

 既然耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(俗稱摩門教)的拱心石—- 《摩門經》的來源(用「先見寶石」來翻譯)矛盾離奇詭譎,疑義大解析。

既然2003年,文化人類學家墨菲堅持基因分析結果,與摩門經聲稱美洲印第安人是古代異教以色列人後裔的說法互相牴觸,並坦言到:「我認為,公眾視摩門經為小說創作是持平的觀點。」

 既然摩門經 & 摩門教義 的 靈感抄襲來源。 (內有文章!!!—-天下文章一大抄!!!)

 既然斯密約瑟 有超重大宗教斂財疑義,經不起檢驗。

 既然耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(俗稱摩門教)創教教主斯密約瑟的先知預言有超重大疑義,經不起檢驗。

 既然斯密約瑟的簡評批判—-耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(俗稱摩門教)創教教主斯密約瑟的人品有超重大疑義,經不起檢驗。

 耶穌基督末世聖徒教會常強調自己是一個復興的教會,斯密約瑟依異象和啟示,不僅復興了教會,也復興了具有聖經精神的一夫多妻制。

對於十九世紀的摩門教領導人,一夫多妻制原則不只是一個可選的啟示 –他們認為這是斯密約瑟最重要的啟示,在毫無疑育慮下教導他們的。如果他們接受了他作為一個不會犯錯的先知,如果他們想充分的高陞,他們沒有別的辦法,只能實行多妻。

話說16世紀初歐洲的宗教改革導致半個歐洲脫離了羅馬天主教教會,開始了基督教新教的歷史。許多普通人根據自己對《聖經》的理解,開創了獨立的教派。大量的新教徒在歐洲遭到迫害,於是紛紛移民到了美洲新大陸。在這裡,各種教派找到了宗教自由的樂土。

19世紀初,經過兩次戰爭之後逐漸進入政治穩定的美國,出現了一次大規模的宗教復興運動。從19世紀早期美國宗教運動發展史來看,摩門教是後期聖徒運動的產物。後期聖徒運動(英语:Latter Day Saint movement)是從19世紀早期由美國東北部開始的宗教運動,普遍被認為是在該運動中被認為是先知的小約瑟·斯密開始的。

這個運動是復原主義(Restorationism)中的數個運動之一,復原主義中包括復原運動(或譯恢復運動)(Restoration Movement)

復原運動(或譯恢復運動) 主要領導人物亞歷山大·坎貝爾(Alexander Campbell)和後來成為早期摩門教最有影響力的雷格登瑟耐(Sidney Rigdon)有著深厚關係。許多歷史學家都認為在早期歷史的後期聖徒運動中,雷格登瑟耐的影響力是與摩門教創始人斯密約瑟不相上下的。

雷格登瑟耐1821 年去見亞歷山大坎貝爾,他們做了長時間的討論,這導致兩人加入坎貝爾運動。雷格登瑟耐成為一個在匹茲堡教會受歡迎的恢復運動(Restoration Movement)牧師。然而,一些心懷不滿的成員迫使他於 1824年辭職。

後來,………….. 老謀深算,心機狡猾, 喜作幕後操控者的雷格登瑟耐可說是看不見的”天使” 摩羅乃,是早期斯密約瑟背後的影武者,是摩門經背後的藏鏡人,是後期聖徒運動的創導者,是早期摩門教的幕後操控者。

然而, 雷格登瑟耐也僅醉心於他的復原運動和後期聖徒運動, 他的傳統清教徒思想及法律上僅允許一夫一妻制使他怎麼看都不像是一夫多妻制的主導者。雷格登瑟耐在1844年在叛教之後一個時期,還寫了一封信,反彈到Messenger and Advocate譴責教會的十二使徒定額組和一夫多妻制的連接[4]

最早期摩門教的金三角之一考得里奧利佛(Oliver  Cowdery)也不像是一夫多妻制的主導者。

考得里奧利佛終身不相信並不接受斯密約瑟的持劍天使的異象說法。考得里奧利佛後來叛離了斯密約瑟的領導和教會,並於1838年為了幾個控告(包括從未收回斯密約瑟是個犯姦淫者的宣稱)而被開除教籍。

據斯密約瑟哥哥斯密海侖曾說:「約瑟受命娶更多妻子,而他延遲遵守,直到一位天使拿著抽出的寶劍站在他面前,宣稱倘若他再延遲完成這誡命,就要殺了他。」[5]

另據言, 遲至1843年5月,斯密約瑟哥哥斯密海侖(尚未成為斯密約瑟的多重婚姻主義的歸信者)仍試圖援引摩門經雅各書 第二章 27-30中的譴責來反駁多重婚姻的傳言[6]。  約三個月之後,在1843年8月,他與菲爾丁湯普森Mercy Fielding Thompson,Robert B. Thompson的寡婦和海侖的妻子瑪麗的妹妹,和凱瑟琳菲利普Catherine Phillips多重結婚[7]

如果斯密約瑟背後的影武者–雷格登瑟耐及最早期摩門教的金三角之一考得里奧利佛都反對一夫多妻制,甚至與其一起被槍擊斃命的哥哥斯密海侖(尚未成為斯密約瑟的多重婚姻主義的歸信者)遲至1843年5月,仍試圖援引摩門經雅各書 第二章 27-30中的譴責來反駁多重婚姻的傳言。

那斯密約瑟為何一定要強行引進在美國社會上會引起了廣泛的倫理、司法和風俗爭議與糾紛的一夫多妻制呢?

極可能的原因之一是:斯密約瑟是從聖經舊約的始祖教長(Old Testament patriarchs)獲取有關一夫多妻制的想法。

極可能的原因之一是: 斯密約瑟從是從當代宗教實行團體如科克倫團體 (Cochranism , 靈性妻子spiritual wifery),獲取有關一夫多妻制的想法。

極可能的原因之一是: 正如福音派基督徒所說—- 他是一個瘋子?[8]

極可能的原因之一是:正如成龍所說: “我犯了天下男人都會犯的錯誤”。(..有人說成龍毫無擔當和卑鄙狡詐,妄圖拉著天下男人陪同他一起逃脱道德的谴责…)

極可能的原因之一是: 正如斯密約瑟的總會會長團第二副會長(Jan 1841~1844) 勞威廉(William Law) 在與斯密約瑟決裂之後所說: “…相信斯密約瑟以威逼強迫和教導年輕婦女關於多重婚姻的教導來玷汙年輕少女”[9]

極可能的原因之一是: 正如齐宣王和孟子的一段对话,齐宣王说他自己有一个毛病,那就是爱好女色。原文是: 王曰:“寡人有疾,寡人好色。” [10]斯密約瑟也曾自暴他的性鬥爭:“青年的弱點和人性的腐敗,我很抱歉地說,使我百般試煉中,在這種情況下,導致許多進攻慾望的滿足 。“ [11] 

極可能的原因之一是: 斯密約瑟利用信徒的迷信(很多人對神通、各宗教經史所紀錄的顯靈神跡或特異功能的存在都持不宜否定心態。)、信仰、好色、貪念等人性;以宗教名義、自命先知, 或擁有神賜予的力量去進行非宗教目的、謀取自己利益、政治目的或滿足一己色慾。摩門教金三角近乎天衣無縫的詐騙佈置,使得被騙者於受害後也不知被佈局欺騙。

至此 我們得談一下1833年- 1835年斯密約瑟與芬妮∙愛爾傑(FANNY ALGER)的婚外情[12]芬妮∙愛爾傑是住在斯密約瑟家中,可能在幫助他的原配愛瑪照料家事與小孩的養女。約瑟隱藏他與芬妮的關係不讓公眾與他的原配愛瑪知道。愛瑪後來發現這段關係,暴怒地將這個不懂得隱匿與先知有高榮關係之後果的女孩趕出家門。 1838年1月21日摩門經的見證人考得里奧利佛認為這不是婚姻關係。他說這是:「骯髒、下流、邪惡的事件…」[13]

歷史學家勞倫斯福斯特Lawrence Foster堅稱,後來摩門教徒可能錯誤地假設斯密約瑟與芬妮∙愛爾傑是有一個婚姻的,其實他們只有性的關係。他認為斯密約瑟與芬妮∙愛爾傑的婚姻,是為“有爭議的假設“而不是“既定事實“[14]

綜上所述, 吾人是可以得出明顯的結論: 斯密約瑟有了與芬妮∙愛爾傑(FANNY ALGER)的婚外情,然後試圖引經據典,以神之異象啟示托詞(詳見附錄), 建構發明一夫多妻制(他極可能已經一直考慮),以挽救他的教會會長職位和以宗教神學來掩護他的罪惡及合理化他的作為。

走筆至此,想起一段摩門教徒Kenan的感傷呼喊—– 就用它來作為本文的尾語吧:”….難道你們所說的敗類就是第一代先知約瑟史密嗎,他不就是一夫多妻制的第一人嗎,難道教會的一切不都是他口中出來的,一切的一切都是在約瑟史密這個人的理論思想基礎上創建起來的,如果我們不能保證這個人的誠實守信持守到底而非借上帝之名滿足其多妻的慾望,我們怎麼保證教會的真實性呢?….如果教會的創始人就是一個為滿足自己淫欲而私自捏造出這條啟示,那這樣的人我們還有什麼必要去相信他呢?”[15]

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

附錄: 斯密約瑟建構發明一夫多妻制所引據經典及其自稱之異象啟示

  1. 聖經
  2. 亞伯拉罕書
  3. 個人啟示
  4. 1943 啟示
  5. 持劍天使啟示

聖經

聖經舊約中有多位一夫多妻的人物。在現代也有一些現代的聖經學者認為聖經主張一夫多妻制,如William Luck及Blaine Robinson。[16]

多配偶制在舊約有很多例子,在新約沒有明確的禁止。舊約例子: 亞伯拉罕 雅各  以掃  拉麥 摩西 羅波安  掃羅王 大衞 所羅門 ; 新約例子: 十個童女的比喻被一些人士視為可能是耶穌對一夫多妻制的比喻[17]  ,因為有5個童女是聰明的。比喻中是關於一個新郎和10個處女(5個處女聰明,5個處女愚蠢)點燈的事,不過有其他觀點指出在古代有可能是伴娘。[18]早期教會游斯丁曾經提過在當時的猶太男子被允許有四,五個妻子[19] 及猶太女人en:Babatha 是第二任妻子。

宗教改革时期在16世紀,基督教重新審查多元婚姻。基督新教創始人馬丁路德寫下了:「我得承認我不能禁止一個人娶幾個妻子,因為它與經文並不矛盾。如果一個男人想與一個以上的妻子結婚他應該問他是否按照耶和華的話滿足他的良心。在這種情況下,民事機構無權干預。」[20]  

 亞伯拉罕書

斯密約瑟獲得埃及古物草紙,單方面宣稱: 「…該記錄出自埃及地下墓穴,後來落入我們手中。亞伯拉罕在埃及時寫的記錄,叫做亞伯拉罕書,是他親手寫在紙草紙上的。」[21]亞伯拉罕書是所有經文中唯一提到,上帝竟然指示祂的僕人先知向祂所造的人撒謊!有人認為,這是斯密約瑟為他秘密多妻又公開向教友們撒謊否認而編纂出的經文。因為,如果上帝指示亞伯拉罕撒謊,那麼斯密約瑟在一夫多妻上的撒謊不也就可以看作是上帝的指示? 另外,亞伯拉罕書也是教會實施一夫多妻的主要依據和榜樣。[22]

個人啟示

莎拉∙安∙惠特耐(Sarah Ann Whitney)於1842年七月在一個秘密婚禮中嫁給了斯密約瑟。一個透過斯密約瑟給莎拉∙安之父的啟示認可了這個結合:「真確地,主說:我的僕人紐外·惠特耐(Newell  K. Whitney);我的僕人斯密約瑟被命令告知你和你的家人,而你也已經同意的事在我眼中是好的。你將在你頭上獲得榮耀、不朽作為獎賞。並且有永恆的生命賜給你們一家老小。」莎拉∙安的母親,依莉莎白寫道:「我們從心裡確信上帝…許可….我們將獻上我們只有十七歲的大女兒給斯密約瑟,在多重婚姻裡。」[23] 

 843 啟示

耶穌基督後期聖徒教會標準經文—教義和聖約第一百三十二篇
 
一八四三年七月十二日,在伊利諾,納府記錄的、透過先知約瑟‧斯密給予的啟示,關於新永約,包括婚約的永恆性,以及多妻【教會史,5:501-507】。  1 主實在這樣對你,我僕人約瑟說,因為你已向我的手求問,想知道並了解我,主,如何在我僕人亞伯拉罕、以撒、雅各,還有我僕人摩西、大衛和所羅門有許多妻妾一事的原則和教義上,稱他們為義──  2 看啊,看,我是主你的神,會就這件事答覆你。
 

32

 

所以,去吧,去做亞伯拉罕的事工;進入我的律法,你們就必得救。

 

33

 

但是如果你們不進入我的律法,你們就得不到我父給亞伯拉罕的應許。

 

34

 

神命令亞伯拉罕,撒拉就把夏甲給亞伯拉罕為妻。她為何這樣做?因為這是律法;從夏甲出生許多人民。所以,這件事和其他諸事,就實現了應許。

 

35

 

所以,亞伯拉罕在罪罰之下嗎?我實在告訴你們,沒有,因為是我,主,命令的。

持劍天使啟示

斯密約瑟宣稱獲得持劍天使的異象。「過去統管我、引導我、在這事工上堅固我的同一位神,賜給我這有關神聖多重婚姻的啟示並命令,同一位神要我遵守這命令。祂對我說,除非我接受、介紹引進、施行這命令,否則我和我的人民都會一起被咒詛,從此時起就被翦除。我們必須遵守,這是永生的法則,而且是以命令而非教誨的形式所賜下。」[24]據斯密約瑟哥哥斯密海侖所說:「約瑟受命娶更多妻子,而他延遲遵守,直到一位天使拿著抽出的寶劍站在他面前,宣稱倘若他再延遲完成這誡命,就要殺了他。」[25]

在這裡我們順便談一下一個令耶穌基督後期聖徒教摩门教難以自圓其說的一件事。

回顧當年,斯密約瑟硬把多重婚姻引入教會,主要是靠斯密約瑟自稱的一個異象 –持

劍天使的異象。

斯密約瑟繼承者楊百翰相信並接受斯密約瑟的”持劍天使的異象”也實際實行了多重婚姻教義。

我們可以思考一個簡易邏輯:

如果那真有一位持劍天使的異象,強制約瑟斯密進入多重婚姻。

那麼, 當美國聯邦要通過制裁多妻制度的法律時 ,當教會會長伍惠福受到來自美國聯邦政府的壓力後要停止多妻制度時.  持劍天使 跑那去了?

(詳見: 耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(摩門教)一夫多妻制及迫使其宣布結束的美國聯邦法律簡介)


[1] Wikipedia, Articles of Faith (Latter Day Saints) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Faith_(Latter_Day_Saints)

[2] Greiner & Sherman, Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, pg. 198–199 

[4]

It is a fact so well known that the Twelve and their adherents have endeavored to carry on this spiritual wife business … and have gone to the most shameful and desperate lengths to keep from the public. First, insulting innocent females, and when they resented the insult, these monsters in human shape would assail their characters by lying, and perjuries, with a multitude of desperate men to help them effect the ruin of those whom they insulted, and all this to enable them to keep these corrupt practices from the world. ,( Van Wagoner 1986, pp. 83)

[5] ─斯密海侖,Elder Benjamin F. Johnson’s Letter to George S. Gibbs, 1903  “Joseph was commanded to take more wives and he waited until an angel with a drawn sword stood before him and declared that if he longer delayed fulfilling that command he would slay him."
Hyrum Smith, Elder Benjamin F. Johnson’s Letter to George S. Gibbs, 1903; http://www.i4m.com/think/history/angel_sword.htm; 法蘭客  持劍天使的異象http://blog.udn.com/lofranklo/4791359

[6] Levi Richards Journal, 14 May 1843; cited by Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), 54.; Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, 2nd ed. (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 141, 332. .

[8] [斯密約瑟]不是一個騙子就是一個瘋子。~ 福音派基督徒 evangelical Christians. Richard J. Mouw, The Possibility of Joseph Smith: Some Evangelical Probings in Neilson & Givens (2008) at 189.

[9] William Law 和另外六個弟兄創辦《納府解說者》,此報紙批評斯密約瑟的論點主要有三點。壹、認為斯密約瑟原來是個真正的先知,但是現在卻成為墮落的先知,因為他教導多重婚姻高陞、以及其他具爭議性的教義;貳、認為斯密約瑟有要創造一個神權政權的意圖。參、相信斯密約瑟以威逼強迫和教導年輕婦女關於多重婚姻的教導來玷汙年輕少女。  斯密約瑟的一夫多妻和一妻多 Frank, http://blog.udn.com/lofranklo/4796972

[10] 《孟子·梁惠王下》

[11] Joseph Smith, Jr., referring to his sexual struggles(他的性鬥爭), “History of Joseph Smith,” Times and Seasons, v. 3, p. 749, April 1, 1842

“These data suggest that sexual attraction was an important part of the motivation for Smith’s polygamy. In fact, the command to multiply and replenish the earth was part of the polygamy theology, so non-sexual marriage was generally not in the polygamous program, as Smith taught it (Todd Compton’s book In Sacred Loneliness, pp. 11-12)."

[12] Gary James Bergera, 』Identifying the Earliest Mormon Polygamists, 1841–44,』 Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 38 no. 3 (Fall 2005), 30n75.  

Gary J. Bergera, an advocate of the 『affair』 theory, wrote:

I do not believe that Fanny Alger, whom Compton counts as Smith’s first plural wife, satisfies the criteria to be considered a “wife.” Briefly, the sources for such a “marriage” are all retrospective and presented from a point of view favoring plural marriage, rather than, say, an extramarital liaison…Smith’s doctrine of eternal marriage was not formulated until after 1839–40

[13] FANNY ALGER芬妮∙愛爾傑
班哲明·詹森;斯密約瑟的一位親近的朋友,曾形容芬妮是:「非常可愛且安靜,每個人似乎都會偏袒她性格上的不穩定。她是一般公認約瑟史密多妻妻子中的第一位。雖然無明文記載,但芬妮與約瑟的婚姻最有可能於1833年某時發生在俄亥俄州的嘉德蘭,當時她已經十六歲,就住在斯密約瑟家中,可能在幫助愛瑪照料家事與小孩。安·伊麗莎·韋伯回憶道:” 史密太太有一個大約十七歲的養女,是個非常漂亮,討人喜愛的女孩。她對這個女兒的鍾愛沒有別的母親可比;他們互相察覺對方屬性中的忠貞與不變,就像所見到的那樣地有吸引力與名符其實。

約瑟隱藏他與芬妮的婚姻不讓公眾與他的原配愛瑪知道。昌西·韋伯敘述愛瑪後來發現這段關係說:”愛瑪暴怒地將這個不懂得隱匿與先知有高榮關係之後果的女孩趕出家門”譯註:摩門教的天國分為高榮國度,中榮國度,低榮國度。而與教中男教徒在聖殿結婚是進入高榮國度的方法之一,故此譯為高榮關係。

安·伊麗莎·韋伯又回憶說:”….感覺上她(愛瑪)這麼做確實需要一些很好的理由。因為逐漸地有斯密約瑟對其養女的愛絕不屬於親子之愛的話在暗中流傳,所以當他的妻子發現這個事實後,馬上設法將這個女孩安置到他(斯密約瑟)無法觸及之處……自從愛瑪斷然地拒絕她繼續待在家中……我母親接待芬妮一直到她被送往她的親戚家中”。

摩門經的見證人考得里奧利佛認為這不是婚姻關係。他說這是:「骯髒、下流、邪惡的事件…」為了平息芬妮與斯密約瑟關係之傳言,教會旋即通過了「聖徒間之婚姻規則」,裡面主張:「有鑑於這個基督的教會曾被指摘一夫多妻,因此我們在此聲明,我們篤信一個男人應只有一位妻子..」

這「婚姻條款」被列入正典 並發行於”教義與聖約”。1852年,多妻教義被公開宣布,至此結束18年來的隱密實施。「婚姻條款」變得過時因而隨後被移除。
芬妮與親戚住在梅菲爾德近郊,一直到大約斯密約瑟逃離嘉德蘭至密蘇里的時候。班哲明·詹森回憶說:”在先知於1837年冬天逃走後不久,愛爾傑家族遷往西部,後來於印第安那州暫時停留了一陣子……不久(芬妮)嫁給了那裡的一個市民,而且在她有生之年,她雖然再也沒離開那州,但她既未背棄教會也從未背棄與先知的友好關係”。班哲明繼續說:”我現在明白在如同在納府一般,對先知複婚關係的懷疑與認識是叛教以及分裂的原因之一,即使在這個公共輿論極少提及此事的嘉德蘭亦然。芬妮與她的小孩及丈夫所羅門卡斯特,在印第安那州度過餘生。斯密約瑟的妻子們芬妮愛爾傑  http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/jw!qMFawZOcFR7KcRjBxhmIhDI-/article?mid=385&prev=398&next=382   ; http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/02-FannyAlger.htm

(Linda King Newell and Valleen Tippetts Avery, 『Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith–Prophet’s Wife, ‘Elect Lady,’ Polygamy’s Foe』 (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1984), p. 66, original emphasis) Emma Smith Lied For Smith Regarding Polygamy http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_emmasmith.html

(Fawn Brodie, 『』No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet,』 2nd ed., revised and enlarged (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1983], pp. 181-83, 345)  Emma Smith Lied For Smith Regarding Polygamy http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_emmasmith.html

Adultery-Yes      

http://www.whitmercollege.com/adultery-yes

[14] Historian Lawrence Foster asserts a claim that later Mormons may have falsely assumed there was a marriage where there was only a sexual relationship: he views the marriage of Alger to Joseph Smith as 『debatable supposition』 rather than 『established fact』.  Todd Compton, Review of In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith』, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 33 (Spring 2001): 184-186

[15]致沉迷于摩门世界中的华人教友  http://www.douban.com/group/topic/7238598/ 2009-07-11 10:21:44 Kenan (I believe in God!)

[19] Justin Martyr (110-165), Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, §134        

[20] Lter, Martin. De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329–330.

[21] 教會史,2,235~236, 348~351; 法蘭客 亞伯拉罕書複製圖和埃及冥王神話1 http://blog.udn.com/lofranklo/4757381

[23] Frank, 斯密約瑟的一夫多妻和一妻多夫http://blog.udn.com/lofranklo/4796972, 14/06/11

[24] – Prophet Joseph Smith, Contributor, Vol. 5, p. 259 ; http://www.i4m.com/think/history/angel_sword.htm; 法蘭客  持劍天使的異象http://blog.udn.com/lofranklo/4791359

[25] ─斯密海侖,Elder Benjamin F. Johnson’s Letter to George S. Gibbs, 1903  “Joseph was commanded to take more wives and he waited until an angel with a drawn sword stood before him and declared that if he longer delayed fulfilling that command he would slay him."
Hyrum Smith, Elder Benjamin F. Johnson’s Letter to George S. Gibbs, 1903; http://www.i4m.com/think/history/angel_sword.htm; 法蘭客  持劍天使的異象http://blog.udn.com/lofranklo/4791359

奇人異事: 前美國懷俄明州選美皇后喬依絲麥基妮joyce mckinney畸戀性虐摩門教士

 奇人異事: 前美國懷俄明州選美皇后喬依絲麥基妮joyce mckinney畸戀性虐摩門教士

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

選美皇后綁教士 性虐3天 34年前逼婚不成 畸戀搬上銀幕

蘋果日報 更新日期:2011/08/14 06:30 蘋果日報

【陳怡妏╱綜合外電報導】美國懷俄明州前選美皇后喬依絲麥基妮,年輕時是個金髮肉彈,智商高達168,但她最出名的事蹟是1977年為愛跨越大西洋,綁架赴英國傳教的摩門教士男友,用手銬把他綁在床上強暴3天,現這段奇情戀曲被拍成紀錄片《小報》(Tabloid)在美上映。

現年62歲的麥基妮宣稱,至今她仍深愛那個摩門教士男友。年輕時她為尋如意郎君,前往保守的猶他州念大學,結識男友安德森,兩人分手後男方遠赴英國傳教。

放話「做到懷孕」

但認為男友遭邪教洗腦的麥基妮,一路追到英國,還綁架男友,用手銬把他囚禁在小屋中,試圖用性愛「拯救」男友遠離邪教。

男友當了3天的性奴後終於受不了,謊稱會娶麥基妮,騙她解開手銬後逃跑。他向警方指控,麥基妮放話說要一直跟他做愛直到她懷孕。麥基妮因非法禁錮被捕,但後來因精神異常交保獲釋,扮成修女棄保潛逃回加拿大,後再逃到美。

希望前男友來看

1984年她被發現在男友辦公室外鬼鬼祟祟,警方在她車上找到手銬跟用來迷昏人的氯仿,懷疑她打算故伎重施。如今故事被拍成影片,她會打電話問電影院男友有沒有來看,甚至混在觀眾席裡等影片播畢大叫:「我就是喬依絲麥基妮!」

喬依絲麥基妮小檔案

年齡:62歲,1949/08出生

家庭:父母為美國北卡羅萊納州教師

特殊經歷:

1972 當選美國懷俄明州小姐

1973~76 與摩門教士同學安德森交往

1977 安德森為與麥基妮分手赴英傳教,麥基妮也赴英,將安德森綁架銬在床上逼婚遭拒。安德森稱被「強暴」3次,此事件稱為「性虐摩門教士案」

1978 麥基妮被控非法拘禁,保釋後逃至加拿大

2008 全球首胎商業複製寵物犬主人被指是麥基妮

資料來源:《蘋果》資料室

年輕的麥基妮是金髮“肉彈”

Tabloid

Tabloid

Directed by: Errol Morris

Cast: Joyce McKinney

Running Time: 1 hr 28 mins

Rating: R

Release Date: July 15, 2011 (Chicago)

Plot: A documentary about Joyce McKinney, a “regular” American girl who was made into a British tabloid sensation when she “abducted” her Mormon boyfriend in England and chained him to a bed for three days.

Who’S It For? Morris has created a following with his acclaimed documentaries, but fans might find this to be one of his more disappointing documentaries (especially if they’re looking for something more cinematic like The Thin Blue Line).

Overall

Diving into this project, Morris had limited resources. The man tied up and romanced by McKinney, Kirk, declined an interview. ”Kj,” The other potential co-star to Morris’ stranger than fiction freak show, died in the mid 2000’s of kidney failure. On top of this, a lot of photos collected by tabloid men and the clips collected »

– Nick Allen

Mormon sex in chains case

The Mormon sex in chains case was a sex scandal involving a Mormon missionary in England during 1977.

Incident

A young Mormon missionary named Kirk Anderson went missing in 1977, in Ewell, Surrey, after he was allegedly abducted from the steps of a meetinghouse of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[1] A few days later a freed Anderson made a report to the police that he had been abducted, driven to Devon, and imprisoned against his will, chained to a bed in a cottage, where he alleged that Joyce Bernann McKinney (b. August 1949), a former Miss Wyoming World[2][3][4] had abducted, attempted to seduce, and then raped him.[5][6] The case became known by many sobriquets, including “The Mormon sex in chains case" and “The Case of the Manacled Mormon."

Judicial proceedings

McKinney was arrested and charged but vigorously denied the charges. While being taken to Epsom for a court appearance, she held a notice up at the window of the police vehicle saying, “Kirk left with me willingly![7] Press reports and McKinney’s lawyer refer to the substantial size differential between McKinney, described as slightly built, and Anderson, described as substantially larger.[8][9]

Along with Keith May, her alleged co-conspirator, McKinney jumped bail and fled the country.[10] On 18 July 1979, they were both arrested in the United States by the FBI on charges of making false statements in order to obtain passports.[11] They both received suspended sentences.[12]

No extradition proceedings were instituted by Britain, and the English court sentenced McKinney in her absence to a year in jail.[13] Under the then-Sexual Offences Act 1956, due to the victim’s gender, there was no crime of rape committed, though Indecent Assault on a man applied.[14]

 Coverage in the media

The coverage in British newspapers in the final months of 1977 was extensive and highly prominent.[1] Many newspapers sought to obtain “scoops" on the story, and also to undermine other newspapers when they managed to obtain and publish exclusive information. One example of this was the Daily Mirror, which researched McKinney’s past and reported finding that she had been a nude model. It ran an exclusive story stating this for several days. The Daily Mail attempted to devalue the Mirror’s reports by advertising itself as “The paper without Joyce McKinney."[15]

Brian Whitaker observes that the case provided “light relief" for the newspaper reading public, from more serious stories about politicians.[15] Roger Wilkes states that the coverage of the case “cheered Britain up no end."[16] A Church of Scotland working party on obscenity in 1979 observed the “gusto" with which newspapers covered and followed the case, noting the accompaniment of the coverage by “the kind of illustration which a decade ago would have been under plain sealed cover."[17]

The coverage was extensive in part because the case was considered so anomalous, involving as it did the issue of rape of a man by a woman. Backhouse and Cohen reported in 1978 that many men, privately, expressed their disbelief of such a possibility.[18]

The case was documented in a book by Anthony Delano in 1978, based on assembled Daily Mirror coverage,[19] entitled Joyce McKinney and the Manacled Mormon.[20]

 Later developments

In 1984 McKinney was again the subject of police action for allegedly stalking Anderson at his workplace, though he was now married with children.[13][21]

In 2008 “Bernann McKinney" appeared in the media after having her pet dog cloned in Korea. Journalists have attempted to tie the two incidents together in articles either noting or declaring some facial similarity between “Bernann McKinney" and Joyce Bernann McKinney. Some reports considered the two to be the same person,[10] and some reports carried Bernann McKinney’s denial that she is the 1977 convicted sex offender.[2][8][22] The International Herald Tribune (and other publications) carried an admission by McKinney that she is the person named in the 1977 case.[9] The revival of interest in the story led the documentary filmmaker Errol Morris to produce his film, Tabloid (2010), based on the media sensation surrounding the story.[23]

Anderson is now a real estate agent, and shies away from publicity. McKinney is reported to now use a wheelchair for mobility, and lives in Newland, in the western North Carolina mountains.[8][21] Keith May died in 2004.[24]

 References

  1. ^ a b Fernandes 1999, pp. 489
  2. ^ a b Bone & Kennedy 2008
  3. ^ “Corrections". St. Petersburg Times: pp. A.1. 2008-08-13. 
  4. ^ “Setting it straight". The Sacramento Bee: pp. A2. 2008-08-13. 
  5. ^ “Joyce McKinney". Mahalo.com. http://www.mahalo.com/Joyce_McKinney. Retrieved 2009-02-22. “I love him so much that I would ski naked down Mount Everest with a carnation up my nose if he asked me to." 
  6. ^ Delano 1978[page needed]
  7. ^ Barret, Frank. “Joyce McKinney". Jamd. http://www.jamd.com/image/g/2635254. Retrieved 2009-02-22. 
  8. ^ a b c Gordon 2008
  9. ^ a b AP 2008
  10. ^ a b Batty 2008
  11. ^ “Beauty queen back in FBI’s custody". St. Petersburg Times. Associated Press: pp. 4. 1979-07-20. 
  12. ^ Brunton 2008
  13. ^ a b O’Neill 2008
  14. ^ “Sexual Offences Act 1956 (c.69), section Intercourse by force, intimidation, etc". Office of Public Sector Information. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1956/cukpga_19560069_en_2. Retrieved 2009-02-24. 
  15. ^ a b Whitaker 1981, pp. 39, 55
  16. ^ Wilkes 2002, pp. 286
  17. ^ CoSWP 1979, pp. 29
  18. ^ Backhouse & Cohen 1978, pp. 163
  19. ^ Woestendiek 2010
  20. ^ Fillion 1996, pp. 331
  21. ^ a b Dobner 2008
  22. ^ Peterkin 2008
  23. ^ Scandal and Subjective Reality in Errol Morris’s Tabloid Village Voice 13 July 2011
  24. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2025500/Joyce-McKinney-Madam-Mayhem-loves-Mormon-missionary-kidnapped.html

Reference bibliography

  • Backhouse, Constance; Cohen, Leah (1978). The Secret Oppression: Sexual Harassment of Working Women. Macmillan of Canada. ISBN 0770517897. 
  • Church of Scotland Working Party on Obscenity and Community Standards, Church of Scotland Social Responsibility Committee (1979). Obscenity and Community Standards. St Andrew Press. 
  • Delano, Anthony (1978-06-16). Joyce McKinney and the Manacled Mormon. Mirror Books. ISBN 978-0859391405. 
  • Fernandes, Fatima (1999). “Sex scandals". In Peter Childs and Mike Storry. Encyclopedia of Contemporary British Culture. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9780415147262. 
  • Fillion, Kate (1996). Lip Service: The Truth about Women’s Darker Side in Love, Sex, and Friendship. HarperCollinsPublishers. ISBN 0060172908. 
  • Whitaker, Brian (1981). News Limited. Minority Press Group. ISBN 0906890047. 
  • Wilkes, Roger (2002). Scandal: A Scurrilous History of Gossip. Atlantic. ISBN 1903809630. 
  • Woestendiek, John (2010). Dog, Inc.: The Uncanny Inside Story of Cloning Man’s Best Friend. New York: Avery Penguin. ISBN 9781583333914. http://books.google.com/books?id=DktfYvZW42MC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false. 
  • “Despite scandal, South Korean cloning firm says it has no plans to screen clients". International Herald Tribune. Associated Press. 2008-09-11. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/11/asia/clone.php. Retrieved 2009-02-23. “On Saturday, McKinney repeated the same argument her lawyer made all those years ago: There is no way she could have overpowered the young Mormon, because he was much bigger and stronger, at what she said was 300 pounds, or 136 kilograms." 
  • Bone, James; Kennedy (2008-08-08). “Missing years in Bernann McKinney’s strange journey from Mormon sex case to clones called Booger". The Sunday Times (London). http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4481742.ece. Retrieved 2009-02-22. “In 1977, the former Miss Wyoming stalked her lover, a Mormon missionary, to a tabernacle in East Ewell, Surrey, allegedly kidnapped him and held him in a cottage in Devon. There, the 17-stone Kirk Anderson claimed, his petite, busty admirer tied him to a bed using mink-trimmed handcuffs, slipped into a see-through nightie and forced him into sex" 
  • Batty, David (2008-08-08). “Joyce McKinney: from Mormon manacling to dog cloning". The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2008/aug/08/joycemckinneyfrommormonman. Retrieved 2009-02-22. 
  • Brunton, Michael (2008-08-11). “Cloner Dogged by Sex Scandal". Time magazine (Time Inc.). http://time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1830818,00.html. 
  • Dobner, Jennifer (2008-08-09). “Bernann McKinney, Joyce McKinney: Cloned puppies and a mormon sex slave? > Is the woman who cloned her puppies the same one who held a Mormon missionary hostage 31 years ago?". Chicago Tribune. http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/aug/09/entertainment/chi-sns-joyce-mckinney-cloned-dogs-hostage-ht. Retrieved 2009-02-24. “Joyce McKinney surfaced again in Utah in May 1984 and was arrested for allegedly stalking the workplace of the same Mormon man she was accused of imprisoning in England. News reports say that police found a length of rope and handcuffs in the trunk of McKinney’s car, along with notebooks detailing the man’s daily activities." 
  • Gordon, George (2008-08-07). “A cloned dog, a Mormon in mink-lined handcuffs and a tantalising mystery". Mail Online. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1042506/A-cloned-dog-Mormon-mink-lined-handcuffs-tantalising-mystery.html. Retrieved 2009-02-22. “In 1978, Joyce McKinney jumped bail and disappeared after being charged with kidnapping a 17-stone male Mormon missionary, whom she had chained to a Devon cottage bed with mink handcuffs and forced to have sex." 
  • O’Neill, Dan (2008-01-29). “A Mormon, a beauty queen and manacles…". South Wales Echo. http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/columnists/2008/01/29/a-mormon-a-beauty-queen-and-manacles-91466-20404168/. Retrieved 2009-02-23. “Joyce, remanded on bail, came out after 11 weeks in Holloway in time to sign a deal with Penthouse Magazine, then disappeared with the faithful Keith, fleeing to Canada, sentenced in her absence to a year in jail" 
  • Peterkin, Tom (2008-08-07). “Dog-cloner denies being Joyce McKinney of the ‘Morman sex-slave’ case". The Daily Telegraph (London). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/southkorea/2517483/Dog-cloner-denies-being-Joyce-McKinney-of-the-Morman-sex-slave-case.html. Retrieved 2009-02-22. “The animal-lover, who has been thrust into the limelight after her pet dog was cloned by Korean scientists, has vehemently denied that she is a former beauty queen accused of a bizarre and salacious sex scandal that fascinated the world 30-years-ago."

耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(摩門教)一夫多妻制及迫使其宣布結束的美國聯邦法律簡介

耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(摩門教)一夫多妻制及迫使其宣布結束的美國聯邦法律簡介

smith polygamy wives

 

耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(摩門教)一夫多妻制及迫使其宣布結束的美國聯邦法律簡介

John He 編作

 

耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(摩門教)一夫多妻制簡介

耶穌基督後期聖徒教會/摩門教的一夫多妻制可說是摩門教最引人爭議的地方,也可說是摩門教的第一大負面(絕大部份教友亦深覺反感), 在美國社會上引起了廣泛的倫理、司法和風俗的爭議與糾紛。

摩門教的一夫多妻制的實踐是在1843年7月12日,由末世聖徒運動創始人斯密約瑟正式推出。斯密約瑟宣稱獲得持劍天使的異象。「過去統管我、引導我、在這事工上堅固我的同一位神,賜給我這有關神聖多重婚姻的啟示並命令,同一位神要我遵守這命令。祂對我說,除非我接受、介紹引進、施行這命令,否則我和我的人民都會一起被咒詛,從此時起就被翦除。我們必須遵守,這是永生的法則,而且是以命令而非教誨的形式所賜下。」[1]據斯密約瑟哥哥所說:「約瑟受命娶更多妻子,而他延遲遵守,直到一位天使拿著抽出的寶劍站在他面前,宣稱倘若他再延遲完成這誡命,就要殺了他。」[2]

當時,一夫多妻制在伊利諾伊州是非法的[3],它是私下實施的。雖然在1839年至1844年那府Nauvoo摩門教領導人,其中包括斯密約瑟,楊百翰Brigham Young和金鮑賀博Heber C. Kimball都擁有多妻,摩門教長老公開教導,所有被吩咐進入多重婚姻的人都是受紀律約束的,例如,1844年2月1日,Hyram布朗被逐出教會[4]。斯密約瑟在1844年5月宣稱[否認多妻],“這是什麼事,一個人被指控犯有通姦—有七個妻子,當我只能找到一個。“[5]

斯密約瑟死後,一夫多妻制的實行則由繼承者楊百翰帶領的耶穌基督末世聖徒教會帶到西部。1847年7月24日,楊百翰及第一個摩門教拓荒者團隊遠走西部,領著一群拓荒先鋒從美國伊利諾州的 Nauvoo(納府)離開,經過內布拉斯加州的 Winter Quarters,歷經1300英里的行程最後到達現今鹽湖城所在的大鹽湖山谷。當時此地還是墨西哥的一部分,但是在美墨戰爭後於1847年7月24日劃入美國境內,成為猶他領地。1848年猶他領地(Utah Territory)正式成了美國領土[6]。在今天的猶他和一些周邊地區,一夫多妻制的原則當時是公開實行的。 1852年,楊百翰覺得在猶他州的教會,向全世界宣布一夫多妻制的實施是足夠安全的[7]。1896年1月4日猶他領地正式成了美國第45州。

十九世紀中後期,在美國引發的輿論反響和社會壓力越來越大,在強大輿論壓力之下,美國聯邦國會為了壓制越來越跋扈囂張的猶他摩門教的一夫多妻歪風,于1862年通過了劃時代性的《莫勒爾反重婚法(Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act)》,1874年通過了《波蘭德法》(The Poland Act), 1882年通過了埃德蒙茲修正案(Edmunds Act or Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882),1887年通過了埃德蒙茲-塔克修正案[8](Edmunds–Tucker Act) 。

在摩門教教徒們看來,一夫多妻制是摩門教神聖不可分割的一部分,但是迫于美國聯邦政府因多妻制度依法(埃德蒙茲-塔克修正案)監禁教會會友,沒收教會財產,並只要摩門教不終止實行多妻制度聯邦政府禁止猶他從美國領地升格成為猶他州。

為了永續生存,為了避免永無止境的官司纏訟,也為了證明摩門教教徒願意遵守美國法律,現時分支主流耶穌基督後期聖徒教會教會(LDS)會長伍惠福於1890年9月25日正式發布「The Manifesto(宣言)」要求教會信眾遵守當地的婚姻法律,宣布結束多妻制度,並從1904年開始將實行多妻制度的會友開除教籍或禁止他們加入教會。但是關於多妻制度的《教義和聖約》第132章仍然存在於教會的標準經文中  [9]。 

不過也有偷偷實行此教義的例子。另一分支基本教義派的耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,常簡稱為FLDS)還是多妻制度。分佈在亞利桑那州的科羅拉多市和猶他州的希爾戴爾聯合起來的雙城的社區中,基本教義派的耶穌基督後期聖徒教會仍然实行一夫多妻。美國劇集Big Love便是根據此基督教教派的一夫多妻制度而改編,主角信奉摩门教,有3名妻子[10]

“摩門教是因政治目而發布這個宣言的,後來又稱這是一個啟示。”末世聖徒教會(FLDS)發言人威利·傑索普(Willie Jessop)說,“我們原教旨主義者認為相信,盟約是與上帝達成的,不因政治原因而受到操縱,結果這在我們與摩門教主流之間設置了一個巨大的障礙。”[11]   

 基本教義派的耶穌基督後期聖徒教會是摩門教基本教義派(Mormon fundamentalist)最大的一個分支教派,也是目前美國最大的奉行一夫多妻制的團體。一群創始教徒在1930年代離開耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,LDS)後創立了FLDS。造成這次分裂主要起因為LDS放棄多配偶制,並且將南犹他州和北亞利桑那州實行多妻制的教徒逐出教會。基本教義派的耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(FLDS)和耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(LDS)是兩個完全不同的宗教派別,兩者之間也沒有任何的正式關係[12]。  

即使耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(LDS)一方面強力推薦使用正式名稱耶穌基督後期聖徒教會來取代摩門教的俗稱,然而另一方面強調「摩門教徒」單單只適用於耶穌基督後期聖徒教會會友身上。針對分離出教會的宗派中仍然實行多妻制度的基本教義派的耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(FLDS),教會(LDS)強調『……沒有那些所謂的「摩爾門教原教旨主義派」或「摩爾門教派」。稱呼那些奉行一夫多妻制的團體為「一夫多妻制的教派」才恰當,任何稱謂包括「摩爾門」都不正確及造稱誤導』[13] 。  

結言:

 在這裡我們必須要談一下一個令耶穌基督後期聖徒教摩门教難以自圓其說的一件事。

回顧當年,斯密約瑟硬把多重婚姻引入教會,主要是靠斯密約瑟自稱的一個異象 –持

劍天使的異象—如本文一開始所述。

斯密約瑟繼承者楊百翰相信並接受斯密約瑟的”持劍天使的異象”也實際實行了多重婚姻教義。

我們可以思考一個簡易邏輯:

如果那真有一位持劍天使的異象,強制約瑟斯密進入多重婚姻。

那麼, 當美國聯邦要通過制裁多妻制度的法律時 ,當教會會長伍惠福受到來自美國聯邦政府的壓力後要停止多妻制度時.  持劍天使 跑那去了?

迫使耶穌基督後期聖徒教會教會(LDS)宣布結束多妻制度的美國聯邦法律簡介

1862年《摩利爾反重婚法》(Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act)

十九世紀中後期,美國聯邦國會為了壓制越來越囂張跋扈的摩門教的多妻歪風,于1862年通過了劃時代性的《莫勒爾反重婚法(Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act)》,美國第十六任總統亞伯拉罕.林肯(President Abraham Lincoln)于1862年7月8日,將之簽署成美國聯邦法律。《摩利爾反重婚法》是由來自佛蒙特州聯邦參議員賈斯廷.史密斯.莫勒爾(Senator Justin Smith Morrill,Vermont)所提出的議案,目的就是為了反對猶他摩門教的多妻主義教義而制定的美國聯邦法律[14] ,此法案禁止重婚和限制美國任何領土的教會和非盈利所有權者的上限至50,000元[15]

摩門教徒認為該法違反憲法,剝奪他們在憲法第一修正案—-自由信奉自己的宗教的權利[16],因而選擇了忽略摩利爾反重婚法案(The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act), 而美國總統林肯也默契准許摩門教會長楊百翰忽視摩利爾反重婚法案,以換取其不捲入與美國南北戰爭[17]

美國總統林肯為何默契准許摩門教會長楊百翰忽視摩利爾反重婚法案?

 高勝寒作了如下(筆者略作微潤)說明[18]:

“當時這條剛被美國聯邦國會通過的《摩利爾反重婚法》新法,卻將亞伯拉罕.林肯總統逼進了一個兩難的處境︰他是以道德號召而被美國選民送進白宮的,如果不簽署這條法律,勢將損害自己維護道德的形象,然而面對著即將爆發的南北戰爭局面,如果簽了,又必會將百翰.楊逼反,極有可能倒戈至美國南方政客的陣容中。

   在這種兩難的局面下,亞伯拉罕.林肯總統使出了一招兩面三刀的權宜之計,他一方面將之簽成美國聯邦法律,另外一方面在暗中通知百翰.楊說,只要猶他保持中立,他就會默許他和他的耶穌基督後期聖徒教會教徒繼續他們的一夫多妻制,這就是為什麼猶他在美國南北戰爭中保持中立的秘史。

   百翰.楊答應不參與分裂美國聯邦後,亞伯拉罕.林肯總統言而有信,立即以美國三軍統帥的身份,對美國猶他道格拉斯堡的駐軍陸軍總司令帕特里克.愛德華.康諾爾將軍(General Patrick Edward Connor,Fort Douglas,Utah)下了一道明確的密令︰暫時不得對違反美國聯邦法律的多妻制度的猶他摩門教教徒,采取任何的制裁行動。

   耶穌基督後期聖徒教會會長百翰.楊與美國聯邦政府的蜜月期,隨著亞伯拉罕.林肯總統之被刺身亡,和美國南北戰爭的結束而畫上了一道休止符,當美國聯邦政府可以騰出手來處理內政時,猶他摩門教的多妻制度議題,又成為美國聯邦國會議員們的熱門話題。”

該摩利爾反重婚法於 1882年由埃德蒙茲修正案(Edmunds Act)進行了修訂,然後再於 1887年由埃德蒙茲-塔克修正案(Edmunds–Tucker Act)進行了修訂。

1874年《波蘭德法》(The Poland Act)

1874年,美國聯邦國會通過了《波蘭德法案(Poland Act)》, 藉由消除了耶穌基督末世聖徒教會(摩門教)的控制成員施加在猶他領土的司法系統,以方便依據1862年《摩利爾反重婚法》進行檢控[19]。《波蘭德法案》是由來自佛蒙特州的聯邦參議員盧克.波特.波蘭德(Senator Luke Potter Poland,Vermont)提出的,故以其名為這條美國聯邦法案命名之。該法案允許美國聯邦檢察官在猶他美國領土地強制執行美國聯邦法律,為打擊摩門教的多妻制度鋪墊了司法戰場的法理基礎[20]

  

1879Reynolds v. United States

在1879年Reynolds v. United States案中最高法院裁定:宗教責任不是受到刑事指控的適當抗辯[21]。宗教信仰自由不能作為實行一夫多妻制的理由。憲法第一修正案並不保障一夫多妻制[22]

1878年11月14日及15日兩天,“雷諾茲對美國案“在美國聯邦最高法院開庭聽證。美國聯邦最高法院院長莫里森.雷米克.韋特(Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite)親自主持聽證,八位美國聯邦最高法院常務大法官內森.克利福德(Justice Nathan Clifford)、諾亞.海恩斯.斯溫尼(Justice Noah Haynes Swayne)、塞繆爾.弗里曼.米勒(Justice Samuel Freeman Miller)、斯蒂芬.約翰遜.菲爾德(Justice Stephen Johnson Field )、威廉.斯特朗(Justice William Strong)、約瑟夫.裴羅.布雷德利(Justice Joseph Philo Bradley)、瓦德.恆特(Justice Ward Hunt)和約翰.馬歇爾.哈倫(Justice John Marshall Harlan)全體坐庭聽證。

   美國政府司法部的理由很簡單:宗教信仰不可成為破壞美國法律的理由。而喬治。雷諾茲的律師則辯稱:“美國聯邦憲法第一條修正案“的”自由信仰“,應該允許摩門教教徒實行他們自己認為是正確的,包括多妻制度在內的宗教行為。

   美國聯邦最高法院的九位大法官中,只有斯蒂芬。約翰遜。菲爾德勉強同意,其餘的八位大法官,全部堅定地支持美國聯邦政府“宗教信仰不可成為破壞美國法律的理由“的法理說法。

   1879年5月5日,美國聯邦最高法院做出了九票同意,零票反對的劃時代裁決:根據“宗教之義務不得成為罪犯免責的理由(宗教的責任是不適合的刑事辯護起訴書) “和“地方法律不得超越聯邦法律“的司法原則,宣布喬治。雷諾茲敗訴。

這個裁決為摩門教的多妻主義權利而挑戰美國政府的司法大戰,畫下了一道再也難以跨越的休止符。[23]

 

1882年埃德蒙茲修正案(Edmunds Act or Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882)

1887年埃德蒙茲塔克修正案[24](Edmunds–Tucker Act)

 

埃德蒙茲法,也被稱為1882年埃德蒙茲反一夫多妻制法,是美國聯邦法規,1882年3月23日簽署成為法律的,宣布一夫多妻制為一項重罪。該法案因美國Vermont佛蒙特州參議員喬治 F.埃德蒙茲George F. Edmunds  而被命名。該埃德蒙茲法還禁止 “重婚“或“非法同居“(unlawful cohabitation)(輕罪a misdemeanor),因而消除了需要證明實際發生的婚姻。該法不僅強化了1862年《摩利爾反重婚法》(Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act),還取消一夫多妻者的投票權,使他們沒有資格出任陪審員,並禁止他們擔任政治職務[25]

埃德蒙茲法的法力無邊, 其限制都能強制執行—- 無論個人實際上實行一夫多妻制,或者只是說一種在摩門教教義多重婚姻的信念而沒有實際參與其中。

就在這一天, 1882年3月22日,美國第二十一任總統切斯特.艾倫.阿瑟(President Chester Alan Arthur)將1882年埃德蒙茲修正案簽署成美國聯邦法律,揭開了摩門教多妻制度教規崩潰的序幕[26]

1887年,來自佛蒙特州的聯邦參議員喬治.富蘭克林.埃德蒙茲(Senator George Franklin Edmunds,Vermont)和來自弗吉尼亞州的聯邦眾議員約翰.倫道夫.塔克(Congressman John Randolph Tucker,Virginia)聯手,通過了《埃德蒙茲-塔克法案(Edmunds-Tucker Act)》,法案鄭重聲明違反者,將面臨罰款五百至八百美元,入獄五年的監禁期,更有權對觸犯者的機構,加以財產充公,勒令解散等懲罰條文。

在《埃德蒙茲法案》與《埃德蒙茲-塔克法案》的威力下,實行摩門教一夫多妻制的信徒們紛紛鋃鐺入獄。

第一個被這條美國聯邦法律制裁的是猶他鹽湖城教會中十二使徒之一的魯德格.克勞森(Rudger Clawson),他在1882年八月因實行 一夫多妻被定罪,被送進了監獄服刑,開啟了摩門教教徒為了一夫多妻制而坐監的先例。 

在審訊期間,他的一個妻子因拒絕作出對他不利之證被判蔑視法庭而入獄。法官查爾斯贊恩判處克勞森以最大可能的刑罰,他被判處3 .52年徒刑和罰款 1,500元。入監前他說了最後一句話,克勞森說他要捍衛他的權利來實踐他的宗教和挑戰法庭執行法律的能力旨在摧毀宗教在特定的[一夫多妻制]建立—這違反了美國憲法第一修正案。他以Clawson v. United States上訴最高法院,進行聆訊後被最高法院駁回了。1887年, 在他的刑期將要到期僅僅幾個月之前, 他被美國總統格羅弗克利夫蘭(Grover Cleveland) 赦免[27]

 接著的是一大批摩門教會領導,或知名分子如威廉. 佐敦.菲萊克(Willian Jordan Flake)、安格斯.芒恩.肯農(Angus Munn Cannon)、約翰.夏普(John Sharp)、舒朗卓(Lorenzo Snow)、亞伯拉罕.霍格蘭.肯農(Abraham Hoagland Cannon )、喬治.奎爾.肯農 (George Quayle Cannon)、郭禧伯(Heber J. Grant) 與斯密F. 約瑟(Joseph F. Smith.)等一千三百余人,逐一被送上了法庭的被告席,或關進監獄服刑[28]

 在這些為了一夫多妻制而進監獄,或被查辦的眾名角中,與斯密F. 約瑟,他不僅是耶穌基督後期聖徒教會的第六任會長/教主,還是家勢顯赫的摩門教世家,斯密 約瑟的侄子,他的父親就是與斯密約瑟一起”殉教”的斯密海侖。 

 斯密F. 約瑟從1901年10月17日開始出任耶穌基督後期聖徒教會的第六任會長/教主,一直到他在1918年11月19日死亡為止,長達十七年之久。

 1906年,美國聯邦檢察官以非法地同時與四位婦女同居為理由,將他送上了法庭,由于法律所限,同居只屬于惡行輕罪,結果罰款三百美元了事。


[1] – Prophet Joseph Smith, Contributor, Vol. 5, p. 259 ; http://www.i4m.com/think/history/angel_sword.htm; 法蘭客  持劍天使的異象http://blog.udn.com/lofranklo/4791359

[2] ─斯密海侖,Elder Benjamin F. Johnson’s Letter to George S. Gibbs, 1903  “Joseph was commanded to take more wives and he waited until an angel with a drawn sword stood before him and declared that if he longer delayed fulfilling that command he would slay him."
Hyrum Smith, Elder Benjamin F. Johnson’s Letter to George S. Gibbs, 1903; http://www.i4m.com/think/history/angel_sword.htm; 法蘭客  持劍天使的異象http://blog.udn.com/lofranklo/4791359

[3] Greiner & Sherman, Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, pg. 198–199 

[4] Times and Seasons, vol. 5, pg. 423, February 1, 1844; Polygamy in North AmericaFrom Wikipedia . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_the_United_States

[5]  History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Volume VI, edited by B. H. Roberts, 1902.; Polygamy in North AmericaFrom Wikipedia . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_the_United_States

The Mormon practice of plural marriage was officially introduced by Joseph Smith, the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, on July 12, 1843. As polygamy was illegal in the state of Illinois, Greiner & Sherman, Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, pg. 198–199    it was practiced privately. Though during the 1839–44 Nauvoo era several Mormon leaders including Smith, Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball took plural wives, Mormon elders who publicly taught that all men were commanded to enter plural marriage were subject to discipline; for example, the February 1, 1844 excommunication of Hyram Brown. In May 1844 Smith declared, “What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one."

[6] Wikipedia, Utah

[7] Polygamy in North AmericaFrom Wikipedia . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_the_United_States  After the death of Joseph Smith, the practice of polygamy was carried to the West by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then led by Brigham Young. In what is today Utah and some surrounding areas, the principle of plural marriage was openly practiced. In 1852, Young felt the Church in Utah was secure enough to announce the practice of polygamy to the world.

[8] Wikipedia, The Edmunds–Tucker Act, 2011/06/02 

The Edmunds–Tucker Act of 1887 was passed in response to the dispute between the United States Congress and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) regarding polygamy. The act is found in US Code Title 48 & 1461, full text as 24 Stat. 635, with this annotation to be interpreted as Volume 24, page 635 of United States Statutes at Large. The act is named after its congressional sponsors, Senator George F. Edmunds of Vermont and Congressman John Randolph Tucker of Virginia. The act was repealed in 1978.

The act disincorporated both the LDS Church and the Perpetual Emigration Fund on the grounds that they fostered polygamy. The act prohibited the practice of polygamy and punished it with a fine of from $500 to $800 and imprisonment of up to five years. It dissolved the corporation of the church and directed the confiscation by the federal government of all church properties valued over a limit of $50,000. The act was enforced by the U.S. marshal and a host of deputies.

The act:

  • Dissolved the LDS Church and the Perpetual Emigrating Fund Company, with assets to be used for public schools in the Territory.
  • Required an anti-polygamy oath for prospective voters, jurors and public officials.
  • Annulled territorial laws allowing illegitimate children to inherit.
  • Required civil marriage licenses (to aid in the prosecution of polygamy).
  • Abrogated the common law spousal privilege for polygamists, thus requiring wives to testify against their husbands
  • Disfranchised women (who had been enfranchised by the Territorial legislature in 1870).
  • Replaced local judges (including the previously powerful Probate Court judges) with federally appointed judges.
  • Abolished the office of Territorial superintendent of district schools, granting the supreme court of the Territory of Utah the right to appoint a commissioner of schools. Also called for the prohibition of the use of sectarian books and for the collection of statistics of the number of so-called gentiles and Mormons attending and teaching in the schools.

In 1890 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the seizure of Church property under the Edmunds–Tucker Act in Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States.

This act was repealed in 1978.

[9]维基百科,一夫多妻制, 2011/06/02 

[10]维基百科,一夫多妻制, 2011/06/02 

[11]摩门教一夫多妻制详细解读 小教主娇妻多达70几位[]http://www.holelong.com/cn/news/2010-1/news_11_130121209.html

[12]维基百科,基本教義派的耶穌基督後期聖徒教會 2011/05/30

[15] Wikipedia, The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, 2011/06/02

The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (37th United States Congress, Sess. 2., ch. 126, 12 Stat. 501) was a federal enactment of the United States Congress that was signed into law on July 8, 1862 by President Abraham Lincoln. Sponsored by Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont, the act banned bigamy and limited church and non-profit ownership in any territory of the United States to $50,000.

[16] Wikipedia, The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, 2011/06/02    The act was designed to target the Mormon practice of plural marriage and the property dominance of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Utah Territory. The measure had no funds allocated for enforcement, and Lincoln choose not to enforce this law; instead Lincoln gave Brigham Young tacit permission to ignore the Morrill Act in exchange for not becoming involved with the Civil War. General Patrick Edward Connor, commanding officer of the federal forces garrisoned at Fort Douglas, Utah beginning in 1862 was explicitly instructed not to confront the Mormons over this or any other issue.

Reynolds v. United States From Wikipedia, 2011/06/02    The Mormons, believing that the law unconstitutionally deprived them of their First Amendment right to freely practice their religion, chose to ignore Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act at the time.

[17] Firmage, Edwin Brown; Mangrum, Richard Collin (2001), Zion in the courts, University of Illinois Press, p. 139, ISBN 0252069803, http://books.google.com/?id=9AimifP2a-4C, “Having signed the Morrill Act, Lincoln reportedly compared the Mormon Church to a log he had encountered as a farmer that was “too hard to split, too wet to burn and too heavy to move, so we plow around it. That’s what I intend to do with the Mormons. You go back and tell Brigham Young that if he will let me alone, I will let him alone.""

[19] Wikipedia, The Poland Act , 2011/06/02    The Poland Act (18 Stat. 253) of 1874 was an act of the United States Congress which sought to facilitate prosecutions under the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act by eliminating the control members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) exerted over the justice system of Utah Territory.

[21] Reynolds v. United States From Wikipedia, 2011/06/02     Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), was a Supreme Court of the United States case that held that religious duty was not a suitable defense to a criminal indictment.

[22] Reynolds v. U.S.: 1879 – The Supreme Court Destroys Mormons’ Hopes
http://law.jrank.org/pages/2650/Reynolds-v-U-S-1879-Supreme-Court-Destroys-Mormons-Hopes.html

On January 6, 1879, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision. The Supreme Court said that the First Amendment did not protect polygamy, and based its decision on historic American cultural values:

Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void, and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offence against society.… In the face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life. Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law.

Therefore, the Supreme Court upheld Reynolds’ sentence of two years imprisonment and a $500 fine.  

[24] Wikipedia, The Edmunds–Tucker Act, 2011/06/02 

The Edmunds–Tucker Act of 1887 was passed in response to the dispute between the United States Congress and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) regarding polygamy. The act is found in US Code Title 48 & 1461, full text as 24 Stat. 635, with this annotation to be interpreted as Volume 24, page 635 of United States Statutes at Large. The act is named after its congressional sponsors, Senator George F. Edmunds of Vermont and Congressman John Randolph Tucker of Virginia. The act was repealed in 1978.

The act disincorporated both the LDS Church and the Perpetual Emigration Fund on the grounds that they fostered polygamy. The act prohibited the practice of polygamy and punished it with a fine of from $500 to $800 and imprisonment of up to five years. It dissolved the corporation of the church and directed the confiscation by the federal government of all church properties valued over a limit of $50,000. The act was enforced by the U.S. marshal and a host of deputies.

The act:

  • Dissolved the LDS Church and the Perpetual Emigrating Fund Company, with assets to be used for public schools in the Territory.
  • Required an anti-polygamy oath for prospective voters, jurors and public officials.
  • Annulled territorial laws allowing illegitimate children to inherit.
  • Required civil marriage licenses (to aid in the prosecution of polygamy).
  • Abrogated the common law spousal privilege for polygamists, thus requiring wives to testify against their husbands.
  • Disfranchised women (who had been enfranchised by the Territorial legislature in 1870).
  • Replaced local judges (including the previously powerful Probate Court judges) with federally appointed judges.
  • Abolished the office of Territorial superintendent of district schools, granting the supreme court of the Territory of Utah the right to appoint a commissioner of schools. Also called for the prohibition of the use of sectarian books and for the collection of statistics of the number of so-called gentiles and Mormons attending and teaching in the schools.

In 1890 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the seizure of Church property under the Edmunds–Tucker Act in Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States.

This act was repealed in 1978.

[25] Wikipedia, The Edmunds Act, 2011/06/02    The Edmunds Act, also known as the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882, is a United States federal statute, signed into law on March 23, 1882, declaring polygamy a felony. The act is named for U.S. Senator George F. Edmunds of Vermont. The Edmunds Act also prohibited “bigamous" or “unlawful cohabitation" (a misdemeanor), thus removing the need to prove that actual marriages had occurred.

The act not only reinforced the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act but also revoked polygamists’ right to vote, made them ineligible for jury service, and prohibited them from holding political office.

[27] Wikipedia, Rudger  Clawson, 2011/06/02  August 1882 was a difficult time for Rudger Clawson. Clawson was the first practicing polygamist to be convicted and serve a sentence after the passage of the Edmunds Act. ( During the trial, one of his wives refused to testify against him. She was put in prison for contempt of court. Judge Charles S. Zane sentenced Clawson to the maximum possible penalty—he was punished with 3 1/2 years in prison and a $1,500 fine. For his final words before being sent to prison, Clawson defended his right to practice his religion and challenged the court’s ability to enforce a law aimed at destroying a particular establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. His appeal was heard and rejected by the Supreme Court of the United States in Clawson v. United States. He was pardoned in 1887 by President Grover Cleveland mere months before his sentence was going to expire.

[28] Wikipedia, The Edmunds–Tucker Act, 2011/06/02 

  • William J. Flake — 1883 — one of the founders of Snowflake, Arizona, who married his second wife in 1868. Was imprisoned in the Yuma Territorial Prison in 1883. After his release, when asked which of his wives he was going to give up, he replied, “Neither. I married both in good faith and intended to support both of them." As he had already served his sentence, he could not be retried on the same charges.
  • Angus M. Cannon — 1885 — a Stake President, member of the Council of Fifty and younger brother of Apostle George Q. Cannon. Cannon was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and a $900 fine. Cannon was the appellant in the case of Cannon v. United States, which was decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1885. Cannon’s appeal was on the grounds that he had immediately ceased having sexual relations with the two wives he was accused of cohabiting with after polygamy was criminalized. The Court rejected Cannon’s argument, holding that “[c]ompacts for sexual non-intercourse, easily made and easily broken, when the prior marriage relations continue to exist, with the occupation of the same house and table and the keeping up of the same family unity, is not a lawful substitute for the monogamous family which alone the statute tolerates."
  • John Sharp — 1885 — a Bishop, member of the Council of Fifty, territorial chairman of the People’s Party, director for the Union Pacific Railroad, Zion’s Cooperative Mercantile Institution, Deseret Telegraph, and Deseret National Bank. Sharp initially pleaded not guilty, but withdrew his plea and pleaded guilty to the charge. He was fined $300 and court costs. As a result of pleading guilty, rather than plead not guilty as other LDS Church leaders had done, Sharp was asked by the stake high council and the First Presidency to resign as bishop of the Salt Lake Twentieth Ward, which he did on 3 November 1885. The New York Times criticised the church’s removal of Sharp and suggested that it “reveals again the stubborn character of the Mormons’ opposition to the law".
  • Lorenzo Snow — 1885 — an Apostle of the church at the time. In late 1885, Snow was indicted by a federal grand jury for three counts of unlawful cohabitation. According to his indictments, Snow had lived with more than one woman for three years. The jury delivered one indictment for each of these years, and Snow was convicted on each count. After conviction he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the federal district court which convicted him. The petition was denied, but federal law guaranteed him an appeal to the United States Supreme Court. In Ex Parte Snow the Supreme Court invalidated Snow’s second and third convictions for unlawful cohabitation. It found that unlawful cohabitation was a “continuing offense," and thus that Snow was at most guilty of one such offense for cohabiting continuously with more than one woman for three years. Snow became President of the LDS Church in 1898.
  • Abraham H. Cannon — 1886 — a member of the First Council of the Seventy of the Church and son of Apostle George Q. Cannon. Cannon was convicted of unlawful cohabitation in 1886 and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, which he served in full. In 1889 he became an Apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
  • George Q. Cannon — 1888 — an Apostle of the church and former non-voting delegate for the Utah Territory in the United States Congress, prior to passage of the Edmunds Act. Cannon surrendered himself to authorities and pleaded guilty at trial to a charges of unlawful cohabitation. As a result, Cannon served nearly six months in Utah’s federal penitentiary.
  • Heber J. Grant — 1899 — an Apostle of the church at the time. Grant pleaded guilty to unlawful cohabitation and paid a $100 fine. Grant became President of the LDS Church in 1918.
  • Joseph F. Smith — 1906 — President of the LDS Church. Smith was brought to trial on a charge of unlawful cohabitation with four women in addition to his lawful wife; he pleaded guilty and was fined $300, the maximum penalty then permitted under the law. 

耶穌基督後期聖徒教會一夫多妻制編年大事記(摩門教多重婚姻初驗不合格系列)

耶穌基督後期聖徒教會一夫多妻制編年大事記(摩門教多重婚姻初驗不合格系列)

Polygamous Family

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

  

smith polygamy wives 

摩門教(耶穌基督後期聖徒教會)一夫多妻制編年大事記

John He 編作

  

1831

    July 17

斯密約瑟可能首次獲得多重婚姻的啟示,但無當時直接記錄。有學者相信,斯密約瑟於1831年7月17日宣布一夫多妻制的一個啟示。這個所謂的啟示, 是在三十年後–1861年, 由早期摩門教歸信者,威廉W ·菲爾普斯(William W. Phelps) 寫給楊百翰信中描述到的[1]

雖然1831年的啟示是被摩門教歷史學家引用[2],非摩門教歷史學家,福斯特和評論家坦納居均有不同意見,並沒有達成共識[3]

18331835

斯密約瑟與芬妮愛爾傑(FANNY ALGER)的婚外情[4]芬妮∙愛爾傑是住在斯密約瑟家中,可能在幫助他的原配愛瑪照料家事與小孩的養女。約瑟隱藏他與芬妮的關係不讓公眾與他的原配愛瑪知道。愛瑪後來發現這段關係,暴怒地將這個不懂得隱匿與先知有高榮關係之後果的女孩趕出家門。 1838年1月21日摩門經的見證人考得里奧利佛認為這不是婚姻關係。他說這是:「骯髒、下流、邪惡的事件…」[5]

歷史學家勞倫斯福斯特Lawrence Foster堅稱,後來摩門教徒可能錯誤地假設斯密約瑟與芬妮∙愛爾傑是有一個婚姻的,其實他們只有性的關係。他認為斯密約瑟與芬妮∙愛爾傑的婚姻,是為“有爭議的假設“而不是“既定事實“[6]

1834

    9月24日

婚姻法條在總會教友大會宣讀聲明說:“…一個男人應該只有一個妻子,除了死亡。“

1835

    7

斯密約瑟獲得埃及古物草紙,單方面宣稱: 「…該記錄出自埃及地下墓穴,後來落入我們手中。亞伯拉罕在埃及時寫的記錄,叫做亞伯拉罕書,是他親手寫在紙草紙上的。」[7]亞伯拉罕書是所有經文中唯一提到,上帝竟然指示祂的僕人先知向祂所造的人撒謊!有人認為,這是斯密約瑟為他秘密多妻又公開向教友們撒謊否認而編纂出的經文。因為,如果上帝指示亞伯拉罕撒謊,那麼斯密約瑟在一夫多妻上的撒謊不也就可以看作是上帝的指示? 另外,亞伯拉罕書也是教會實施一夫多妻的主要依據和榜樣。[8]

1835   

    817

考得里奧利佛及雷格登瑟在特別教友大會中(斯密約瑟出城未出席)提出ㄧ份"靈感文件",該文指出,“基督教會一直被責備淫亂和一夫多妻制的犯罪…“[9] 由於在這個時候並沒有已知摩門教一夫多妻制的指控被出版知曉,它似乎是來自教會內部本身的“責備“。教會旋即通過了「聖徒間之婚姻規則」,裡面主張:「有鑑於這個基督的教會曾被指摘一夫多妻,因此我們在此聲明,我們篤信一個男人應只有一位妻子.. 」這「婚姻條款」被列入正典 並發行於”教義與聖約” , (Section 101:4)[10]。1852年,多妻教義被公開宣布,至此結束18年來的隱密實施。「婚姻條款」變得過時因而隨後被移除[11]

1835

    1017

   斯密約瑟的日記說:“召集我的家人一起安排我的家務關注,並遣送我的寄宿者。[12]“這可能是指他的第一個多重妻子,十六歲的芬妮∙愛爾傑(FANNY ALGER)與他的關係已造成謠言及約瑟內部圈子之間的挑撥離間。故安排讓她離開他家,不與他一起住。[13]
1838

    121

摩門經的見證人考得里奧利佛認為約瑟與芬妮的婚外情不是婚姻關係。他說這是:「骯髒、下流、邪惡的事件…」[14]考得里奧利佛因為此案(從未收回斯密約瑟是個犯姦淫者的宣稱)及其他”犯罪”而被開除教籍[15]

1839-18414

   斯密約瑟宣稱獲得持劍天使的異象。「過去統管我、引導我、在這事工上堅固我的同一位神,賜給我這有關神聖多重婚姻的啟示並命令,同一位神要我遵守這命令。祂對我說,除非我接受、介紹引進、施行這命令,否則我和我的人民都會一起被咒詛,從此時起就被翦除。我們必須遵守,這是永生的法則,而且是以命令而非教誨的形式所賜下。」[16] …「約瑟受命娶更多妻子,而他延遲遵守,直到一位天使拿著抽出的寶劍站在他面前,宣稱倘若他再延遲完成這誡命,就要殺了他。」  [17]

 

 

1841

    45日

斯密約瑟開始一本正經地,非常認真地多重娶妻。[18]

1842

斯密約瑟夫企圖雷格登瑟耐十九歲的女兒Nancy Rigdon為妻,她拒絕了。雷格登瑟耐當時是總會會長團第一副會長,然而他並不接受一夫多妻制。

1843

    712日

斯密約瑟宣稱獲得一夫多妻制的啟示,收錄在教義和聖約第一百三十二篇[19]

 

1843

    10

斯密約瑟私下向勞威廉William Law的妻子Jane Law二度求婚[20],她拒絕斯密約瑟的要求嫁給他作為一妻多夫制的多妻之一[21],勞威廉當時總會會長團第二副會長(Jan 1841~1844)。

1844

1844年春天,勞威廉William Law下定決心將斯密約瑟的一夫多妻公諸於世。當時一夫多妻是違法的,威廉對斯密約瑟與瑪莉亞勞倫斯生活在「一個公開的通姦情況下」提出訴訟。接下來的那個星期天,斯密約瑟在教會演講時回應威廉的控訴說:「又一個控告來勢洶洶的向我奔來…. 怎麼會有這種事?當我只能找到一個妻子時,但卻被控告犯了通姦罪且擁有七個妻子!」[22]。事實上,在此時,斯密約瑟至少已經娶了34個妻子。[23] 

1844

    67

勞威廉William Law在其創辦的納府解說者報上刊載斯密約瑟的一夫多妻。

 

610

時任伊利諾州納府市長的斯密約瑟。在協商兩天之後,斯密約瑟讓納府市議會在1844年6月10日通過了決議聲稱該報紙是 Public Nuisance(公共騷擾妨害),並下令摧毀該報紙的印刷廠[24]。斯密約瑟說:『議會通過一項條令宣告《納府解說者》是個騷擾妨害,並命令我消除這所指的騷擾妨害。我立刻命令警長毫不遲疑地將它消滅。』[25]

 

618

時任伊利諾州納府市長的斯密約瑟宣布戒嚴。[26]

623

斯密約瑟同意原配斯密銷毀1843一夫多妻制啟示的原稿。[27]

 

625

斯密約瑟和斯密海侖,連同其他十五個市議會成員和一些朋友,主動向迦太基監獄警官William Bettisworth投降被監禁。(是先因June 10, 1844摧毀印刷場被指控煽動暴亂罪)市議會成員下午交保候審。斯密約瑟被續監禁候審乃是另因叛國罪(非法宣布戒嚴)[28]

1852

1852年,楊百翰覺得在猶他州的教會,向全世界宣布一夫多妻制的實施是足夠安全的。這是教會實行多妻制度首次向外界公開一夫多妻制的實施[29],在此之前多項教會官方刊物公開否認教導多妻制度。[30]

1852-1890年

美國聯邦政府大量施壓摩門教停止一夫多妻制。于1862年通過了劃時代性的《莫勒爾反重婚法(Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act)》,1874年通過了《波蘭德法》(The Poland Act), 1882年通過了埃德蒙茲修正案(Edmunds Act or Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882),1887年通過了埃德蒙茲-塔克修正案 (Edmunds–Tucker Act) 。

1890

925

為了永續生存,為了避免永無止境的官司纏訟,也為了證明摩門教教徒願意遵守美國法律,現時分支主流耶穌基督後期聖徒教會教會(LDS)會長伍惠福於1890年9月25日正式發布「The Manifesto(宣言)」[31]要求教會信眾遵守當地的婚姻法律,宣布結束多妻制度。

1890-1904年

從1890到1904年之間,教會領袖繼續施行此制。許多教會最高領袖,包括使徒,在1890年的〈宣言〉之後還娶更多妻子。[32]

 

1904

46

 

耶穌基督後期聖徒教會會長斯密F.約瑟正式發布「Second Manifesto(二次宣言)」,開始將實行多妻制度的會友開除教籍或禁止他們加入教會。[33]

1998

在接受CNN與拉里金Larry King採訪時,當被問及一夫多妻制,辛格萊戈登會長說
“我譴責它,是的,作為一種實踐,因為我覺得它不是教條。這是不合法的。而這個教會的立場是,我們將遵守法律。我們信我們從屬於國王,總統,統治者和司法長官,要服從,敬重和維護法律“[34]

2011

斯密約瑟宣稱的一夫多妻制啟示,現今仍收錄在耶穌基督後期聖徒教會標準經文—教義和聖約第一百三十二篇

 

 


[1] Foster 1981, pp. 135; Marquardt 1999 ; Arrington 1992, pp. 195; “A photograph of W. W. Phelps’ copy of the alleged 1831 revelation which commands Mormons to marry Indians so that their posterity would become “white."". Archived from the original on 2008-06-24. http://web.archive.org/web/20080624205300/http://www.ldsfreedom.org/PAGES/TOPICS_PAGES/Polyandry_Data/indianpolygamyp230bshadow.gif. Retrieved 2008-06-20. “A photograph of the important part of W. W. Phelps‘ copy of the alleged 1831 revelation which commands Mormons to marry Indians so that their posterity would become “white." The original is in the LDS historical department." ;  

Ezra Booth, letter dated 6 December 1831, Ohio Star (Ravenna, Ohio), 8 December 1831. Text at Saints Without Halos. Reprinted in (Howe 1834). “… it has been made known by revelation, that it will be pleasing to the Lord, should they [the Mormons] form a matrimonial alliance with the Natives; and by this means the Elders, who comply with the thing so pleasing to the Lord, and for which the Lord has promised to bless those who do it abundantly, gain a residence in the Indian territory, independent of the agent. It has been made known to one, who has left his wife in the state of N.Y. that he is entirely free from his wife, and he is at liberty to take him a wife from among the Lamanites."; Whittaker 1985

[2] BYU history professor Hyrum Andrus, who writes “the Prophet understood the principle of plural marriage as early as 1831. … [a]ccording to Elder Phelps, the revelation then indicated that in due time the brethren would be required to take plural wives." (Andrus 1973)

[4] Gary James Bergera, “Identifying the Earliest Mormon Polygamists, 1841–44," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 38 no. 3 (Fall 2005), 30n75.  

Gary J. Bergera, an advocate of the “affair" theory, wrote:

I do not believe that Fanny Alger, whom Compton counts as Smith’s first plural wife, satisfies the criteria to be considered a “wife.” Briefly, the sources for such a “marriage” are all retrospective and presented from a point of view favoring plural marriage, rather than, say, an extramarital liaison…Smith’s doctrine of eternal marriage was not formulated until after 1839–40

[5] FANNY ALGER芬妮∙愛爾傑
班哲明·詹森;斯密約瑟的一位親近的朋友,曾形容芬妮是:「非常可愛且安靜,每個人似乎都會偏袒她性格上的不穩定。她是一般公認約瑟史密多妻妻子中的第一位。雖然無明文記載,但芬妮與約瑟的婚姻最有可能於1833年某時發生在俄亥俄州的嘉德蘭,當時她已經十六歲,就住在斯密約瑟家中,可能在幫助愛瑪照料家事與小孩。安·伊麗莎·韋伯回憶道:” 史密太太有一個大約十七歲的養女,是個非常漂亮,討人喜愛的女孩。她對這個女兒的鍾愛沒有別的母親可比;他們互相察覺對方屬性中的忠貞與不變,就像所見到的那樣地有吸引力與名符其實。

約瑟隱藏他與芬妮的婚姻不讓公眾與他的原配愛瑪知道。昌西·韋伯敘述愛瑪後來發現這段關係說:”愛瑪暴怒地將這個不懂得隱匿與先知有高榮關係之後果的女孩趕出家門”譯註:摩門教的天國分為高榮國度,中榮國度,低榮國度。而與教中男教徒在聖殿結婚是進入高榮國度的方法之一,故此譯為高榮關係。

安·伊麗莎·韋伯又回憶說:”….感覺上她(愛瑪)這麼做確實需要一些很好的理由。因為逐漸地有斯密約瑟對其養女的愛絕不屬於親子之愛的話在暗中流傳,所以當他的妻子發現這個事實後,馬上設法將這個女孩安置到他(斯密約瑟)無法觸及之處……自從愛瑪斷然地拒絕她繼續待在家中……我母親接待芬妮一直到她被送往她的親戚家中”。

摩門經的見證人考得里奧利佛認為這不是婚姻關係。他說這是:「骯髒、下流、邪惡的事件…」為了平息芬妮與斯密約瑟關係之傳言,教會旋即通過了「聖徒間之婚姻規則」,裡面主張:「有鑑於這個基督的教會曾被指摘一夫多妻,因此我們在此聲明,我們篤信一個男人應只有一位妻子..」

這「婚姻條款」被列入正典 並發行於”教義與聖約”。1852年,多妻教義被公開宣布,至此結束18年來的隱密實施。「婚姻條款」變得過時因而隨後被移除。
芬妮與親戚住在梅菲爾德近郊,一直到大約斯密約瑟逃離嘉德蘭至密蘇里的時候。班哲明·詹森回憶說:”在先知於1837年冬天逃走後不久,愛爾傑家族遷往西部,後來於印第安那州暫時停留了一陣子……不久(芬妮)嫁給了那裡的一個市民,而且在她有生之年,她雖然再也沒離開那州,但她既未背棄教會也從未背棄與先知的友好關係”。班哲明繼續說:”我現在明白在如同在納府一般,對先知複婚關係的懷疑與認識是叛教以及分裂的原因之一,即使在這個公共輿論極少提及此事的嘉德蘭亦然。芬妮與她的小孩及丈夫所羅門卡斯特,在印第安那州度過餘生。斯密約瑟的妻子們芬妮愛爾傑  http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/jw!qMFawZOcFR7KcRjBxhmIhDI-/article?mid=385&prev=398&next=382   ; http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/02-FannyAlger.htm

(Linda King Newell and Valleen Tippetts Avery, “Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith–Prophet’s Wife, ‘Elect Lady,’ Polygamy’s Foe" (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1984), p. 66, original emphasis) Emma Smith Lied For Smith Regarding Polygamy http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_emmasmith.html

(Fawn Brodie, “"No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet," 2nd ed., revised and enlarged (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1983], pp. 181-83, 345)  Emma Smith Lied For Smith Regarding Polygamy http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_emmasmith.html

Adultery-Yes      

http://www.whitmercollege.com/adultery-yes

[6] Historian Lawrence Foster asserts a claim that later Mormons may have falsely assumed there was a marriage where there was only a sexual relationship: he views the marriage of Alger to Joseph Smith as “debatable supposition" rather than “established fact".  Todd Compton, Review of In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 33 (Spring 2001): 184-186

[7] 教會史,2,235~236, 348~351; 法蘭客 亞伯拉罕書複製圖和埃及冥王神話1 http://blog.udn.com/lofranklo/4757381

[12] original in Joseph Smith Collection, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah. Published in: Dean Jessee, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith

[13] Adultery-Yes      

http://www.whitmercollege.com/adultery-yes

Oct 17, 1835 — Joseph Smith’s journal entry states: “Called my family together arranged my domestick concerns and dismissed my boarders." This may refer to his first plural wife, sixteen-year-old Fanny Alger, with whom his relationship has been causing rumors and dissension among Joseph’s inner circle, leaving his home to live apart from him.

[14]

Adultery-Yes      

http://www.whitmercollege.com/adultery-yes

— (Sun) Jan 21, 1838 — Oliver Cowdery confronts Smith with charge of adultery with Fanny Alger. (Perhaps by letter, as Smith had not yet arrived in Missouri)

— Jan 21, 1838 — Oliver Cowdery: “A dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his and Fanny Alger’s was talked over in which I strictly declared that I had never deviated from the truth."  Oliver’s letterbook

[15] History of the Church, vol. 3, pp. 16-18

[16] – Prophet Joseph Smith, Contributor, Vol. 5, p. 259 ; http://www.i4m.com/think/history/angel_sword.htm; 法蘭客  持劍天使的異象http://blog.udn.com/lofranklo/4791359

[17] ─斯密海侖,Elder Benjamin F. Johnson’s Letter to George S. Gibbs, 1903  “Joseph was commanded to take more wives and he waited until an angel with a drawn sword stood before him and declared that if he longer delayed fulfilling that command he would slay him."
Hyrum Smith, Elder Benjamin F. Johnson’s Letter to George S. Gibbs, 1903; http://www.i4m.com/think/history/angel_sword.htm; 法蘭客  持劍天使的異象http://blog.udn.com/lofranklo/4791359

[19]  一八四三年七月十二日,在伊利諾,納府記錄的、透過先知約瑟‧斯密給予的啟示,關於新永約,包括婚約的永恆性,以及多妻【教會史,5:501-507】。
 

32

 

所以,去吧,去做亞伯拉罕的事工;進入我的律法,你們就必得救。

 

33

 

但是如果你們不進入我的律法,你們就得不到我父給亞伯拉罕的應許。

 

34

 

神命令亞伯拉罕,撒拉就把夏甲給亞伯拉罕為妻。她為何這樣做?因為這是律法;從夏甲出生許多人民。所以,這件事和其他諸事,就實現了應許。

 

35

 

所以,亞伯拉罕在罪罰之下嗎?我實在告訴你們,沒有,因為是我,主,命令的。

[20] 法蘭客 斯密約瑟實行一夫多妻的方  http://blog.udn.com/lofranklo/4796967

莎拉勞倫斯和瑪莉亞勞倫斯姐妹(Sarah Lawrenceand Maria Lawrence)

勞倫斯家於1840年到達依利諾州。沙拉和瑪莉亞的父親在他們到達後很快的就去世了。到了1842年,成為孤兒的莎拉和瑪莉亞,一個16歲另一個18歲,開始住在斯密約瑟家中。在1842年夏天,有關斯密約瑟一夫多妻的謠言在那府流傳著。斯密約瑟發佈了一個聲明為自己辯護:「我們被指控擁護多妻制….現在這些荒謬的指控毫無根據的衝著我們而來。…沒有任何教派會像我們這麼尊崇婚姻關係的律法…..我們施行我們所教導的。」幾個斯密約瑟親近的夥伴也宣告說斯密約瑟「是一個好的、品行端正的、正直的…的男人。那些不正確的陳述有關斯密約瑟會長人格的聲明是極不公正的。」那些為斯密約瑟辯護的人中有一位是勞威廉William Law,他是總會會長團第二副會長(Jan 1841~1844)。威廉在加拿大曾經是勞倫斯一家的朋友。他當時對斯密約瑟的一夫多妻一無所知,而當時斯密約瑟剛剛娶了第十六個妻子,莎拉∙安∙惠特耐。
    到了1843年春天,斯密約瑟娶了莎拉和瑪莉亞。一位瑪莉亞在納府的朋友回憶說:「瑪莉亞對於她這麼做到底是對是錯,飽受了對自己的懷疑、害怕與不確定所苦,在她內心有個良心要她做對的事。」她也記得瑪莉亞曾說:「如果在摩門教當中有任何的真理,她將得救…..我的軛既不容易而我的重擔也不輕省。」在1843年十月,在自己的妻子Jane Law 被斯密約瑟二度私下求婚後,勞威廉終於察覺斯密約瑟確實在施行一夫多妻。他不同意這個教義,以及如此的秘密進行,他試著要斯密約瑟放棄它。威廉,「用他的手臂搭著先知的頸…涕淚縱橫的懇求他放棄一夫多妻的教義。」斯密約瑟說他不能這麼做,並且解除威廉總會副會長的職務。最後在1844年春天,威廉下定決心將斯密約瑟的一夫多妻公諸於世。當時一夫多妻是違法的,威廉對斯密約瑟與瑪莉亞勞倫斯生活在「一個公開的通姦情況下」提出訴訟。接下來的那個星期天,斯密約瑟在教會演講時回應威廉的控訴說:「又一個控告來勢洶洶的向我奔來…. 怎麼會有這種事?當我只能找到一個妻子時,但卻被控告犯了通姦罪且擁有七個妻子!」。事實上,在此時,斯密約瑟至少已經娶了34個妻子。 

[21] Wife no. 19″, Ann Eliza Young, 1875, page 61 [These allegations from Ann Eliza Young can only be hearsay; Young was not even born until after Joseph Smith’s death.]

[23] 法蘭客 斯密約瑟實行一夫多妻的方  http://blog.udn.com/lofranklo/4796967

[24] 見官方《教會史》卷5第430-432頁, 1912年版

[25] 見官方《教會史》卷6第423頁,1912年版 

[27] (The Mormon Hierarchy : Origins of Power Michael Quinn page 147) For the Emma quote, Quinn references Letter of Joseph F. Smith to William E. McLellin, 6 Jan. 1880, fd21, box 5, Scott G. Kenney Papers, Manuscripts Division, Marriott Library. ; William E. McLellin letter to Joseph Smith III, 10 Jan. 1861 and July 1872, archives, Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For the Clayton reference, Quinn refers to Clayton diary 22 June 1844 with an explanation referring to other Clayton journal entries.

[29] Polygamy in North AmericaFrom Wikipedia . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_the_United_States  After the death of Joseph Smith, the practice of polygamy was carried to the West by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then led by Brigham Young. In what is today Utah and some surrounding areas, the principle of plural marriage was openly practiced. In 1852, Young felt the Church in Utah was secure enough to announce the practice of polygamy to the world.

[30] 見1835年首版《教義和聖約》第101章第4段-關於教會被指責多妻的行為上教會重申一夫一妻,見1837年5月《傳訊者和提倡者》卷3第8期第511頁-教會聲明不與任何七十員中有多妻行為的長老往來,1844年2月1日時代與季節》卷5第3期第423頁-密西根州長老教導多妻被開除之聲明,1850年1月15日《LDS Millennial Star(後期聖徒千禧之星)》卷12第29頁文章第12條-否認斯密約瑟教導多妻,重申1835年版《教義和聖約》第101章

[31]  http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng

正式宣言一

 敬啟者:

 從鹽湖城發出了有政治目的的數篇新聞報導,在各地廣為刊行,大意是說,猶他州委員會在其最近向內政部長的報告中宣稱,多重婚姻仍在實施,且自去年六月至今,或過去一年中,在猶他州已締結四十件或更多件這種婚姻,還說教會領袖在公開演講中教導、鼓勵、敦促繼續實行多妻制-

 因此,我身為耶穌基督後期聖徒教會會長,謹此,以最嚴正的態度宣布,這些指控都是不實的。我們現在沒有教導多妻制或多重婚姻,現在也沒有批准任何人實行多重婚姻,我否認上述期間在我們的聖殿或在猶他領域任何地方曾實施過四十件或任何件數的多重婚姻。

報導中提到一件個案,其中的當事人宣稱,那婚禮是在一八八九年春天,在鹽湖城,恩道門屋宇內舉行的,但我無從得知誰執行該儀式;這事的經過我一無所知。由於此未經證實的事件,我已指示毫不遲延地拆除該恩道門屋宇。

 鑒於國會已立法禁止多重婚姻,該法並經最高法院宣布合乎憲法,我謹此宣布願意服從那些法律,並願意運用我對我所主領教會的教友的影響力,使他們也同樣服從。

 我或同工們於上述期間,對教會的教導,絕無任何可被合理地解釋為灌輸或鼓勵多妻制之處;本教會任何長老在言談中若顯示出傳達任何這類教導時,均立遭譴責。我現在公開宣布,我對後期聖徒的忠告是:制止締結本地法律禁止的任何婚姻。

 惠福‧伍

耶穌基督後期聖徒教會會長

[32]  Kenneth Cannon II, “After the Manifesto: Mormon Polygamy, 1890–1906″, Sunstone, Jan.–Apr. 1983, p. 27.;  D. Michael Quinn, “LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890–1904″, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1985, 9–105.;  B. Carmon Hardy (1992). Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage (Urbana: University of Illinois Press).

[33] The “Second Manifesto" was announced at the general conference of the church held on April 6, 1904. At a public meeting, Smith announced that he would like to read an “official statement" that he had prepared so that his words “may not be misunderstood or misquoted". Smith read:

Inasmuch as there are numerous reports in circulation that plural marriages have been entered into, contrary to the official declaration of President Woodruff of September 24, 1890, commonly called the manifesto, which was issued by President Woodruff, and adopted by the Church at its general conference, October 6, 1890, which forbade any marriages violative of the law of the land, I, Joseph F. Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, hereby affirm and declare that no such marriages have been solemnized with the sanction, consent, or knowledge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And I hereby announce that all such marriages are prohibited, and if any officer or member of the Church shall assume to solemnize or enter into any such marriage, he will be deemed in transgression against the Church, and will be liable to be dealt with according to the rules and regulations thereof and excommunicated therefrom.

JOSEPH F. SMITH,
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

[34] During an interview with Larry King on CNN, when asked about polygamy, President Hinckley stated:   『I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying, and sustaining the law.』-

摩門經之簡評批判—-名言佳句。

摩門經之簡評批判—-名言佳句

          

John  He 編著

科學和我所瞭解的摩爾門經間,兩者完全的不一致使我掙扎許久。李海人(摩門經說以色列的李海家族在西元前600年從耶路撒冷坐船到美洲 ,然後成為美洲印第安人的祖先。)的後裔在基因測試中怎麼可能測不出來?儘管我多麼希望摩爾門經是真實的,但它不是。它不是真實民族的真實歷史[1]~澳洲植物基因學家前澳洲摩門主教Simon Southerton  

伊坦斯密的《對希伯來人的看法》是否提供了斯密約瑟的摩門經的結構材料?在本書多處篇頁已指出,在原書的許多事情,已在摩門經裡,很可能已提出了許多重要的事情。並不只僅僅是少數事情,一個或兩個,或半打,而是很多;很多事情相似是一個事實,它們累積的力量,讓他們如此嚴重地威脅到斯密約瑟有關摩門經的起源的故事[2]  ~羅伯茨在《Studies of the Book of Mormon摩門經學習)》

1830年首次出版,幾乎每版摩門經裡都印寫著摩門經三位證人及摩門經八位證人的證詞。這些證詞乍看之下,似乎言之有物言辭懇切 也氣勢磅礡的很,但證詞是否真實? …總結: 摩門經證人證詞有超重大疑義,經不起檢驗,應可說是毫無價值的證詞[3]~John He

(摩爾門經)如果是真的,則它是神有史以來給過人們最重要的訊息;如果是假的,則是世界上最狡猾、邪惡、無恥、隱藏最深的騙局。算計著如何欺騙並毀滅百萬位真誠的相信它是來自神的話語,這些人以為他們建立在磐石般穩固的真理之上,直到他們與他們的家人一同落入絕望的無底深淵。 ~摩門教使徒Orson Pratt

[摩門教]總會當局為摩門經所做的那些辯護也許能夠「使不思考的人們滿意,但對於那些會動腦思考的人來說是絕對不夠的」~羅伯(Brigham Henry Roberts), 摩門教會的神學家、歷史學家與護教學者.(羅伯去世前兩個月曾對他的友人,前BYU研究所院長Wesley P. Lloyd 所說)

如果[摩門教]教會領袖不能充份說明教會起源的歷史疑問和摩爾門經裡可能的時代錯誤,這些終將逐漸損害教會年輕人的信心。 ~羅伯(Brigham Henry Roberts), 摩門教會的神學家、歷史學家與護教學者

我認為它的整個是一個錯覺摩門經是一個愚蠢的捏造[4]  ~以撒黑爾Isaac Hale(斯密約瑟的岳父)

我們的分析支持該理論認為,摩門經是由多個十九世紀的作家所寫,更確切地說,我們發現強烈支持斯伯丁雷格登著作理論。在所有的數據中,我們發現雷格登是作為統一的力量。他的訊號主宰了摩門經,而若是其他候選人有更多的可能時,雷格登往往也是隱藏在陰影裡[5]~2008年的計算機分析

關於黃金聖經[摩門經]的謀劃,他們幾乎說不出了兩個一樣的故事[6]  ~帕利大通Parley Chase (約瑟的鄰居)

現在已丟失的第二個斯伯丁手稿一定是存在的。斯密約瑟和雷格登瑟耐使用斯伯丁手稿來產生摩門經的目的是斂財。雷格登是一位偽君子真騙子,是整個陰謀的主要推手[7]~E.D. Howe 

基因分析結果,與摩門經聲稱美洲印第安人是古代異教以色列人後裔的說法互相牴觸。美洲原住民沒有幾種中東民族普遍擁有的DNA標記,而遺傳學研究顯示美洲原住民更接近亞洲人種甚於其他地方人種。這和現在《摩門經》的裡面的序言不符,序言裡面說拉曼人是希伯來人的後裔也是美洲原住民的主要先祖,即使序言裡面沒說他們是唯一的先祖[8]~文化人類學家墨菲Thomas Murphy

尾注:


[1]一位基因學者被摩門教會開除教籍的過程– Simon Southerton http://blog.udn.com/lofranklo/5151797

[5] Jockers et al., Reassessing authorship of the Book of Mormon using delta and nearest shrunken centroid classification, Literary and Linguistic Computing, December, 2008

[7] 摩門經的真正作者是誰? —-斯伯丁-雷格登 是 摩門經作者理論。; ( Roper, Matthew (2005), 『The Mythical 『Manuscript Found』", FARMS Review (Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute) 17 (2): 7–140,);(豪1834年,第100頁)。

深挖之後—- 摩門經的真正作者99.9%是雷格登瑟耐 (Sidney Rigdon) 。

深挖之後—- 摩門經的真正作者99.9%是雷格登瑟耐 (Sidney Rigdon)

John  He 編著 

 

本文是  摩門教初驗不合格:耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(俗稱摩門教)的拱心石—-《摩門經》的「真實性」有超重大疑義,經不起檢驗。   及 摩門經的真正作者是誰? —-斯伯丁-雷格登 是 摩門經作者理論。的延伸補充。

 

          

斯伯丁雷格登 摩門經作者理論 

最近(2008年)的一個計算機分析摩門經文本支持這一理論,儘管該研究不包括小斯密約瑟的提交樣品,因為斯密約瑟的寫作純正例子尚未被發現的。2008年的計算機分析是 把摩門經純文字與,概率很高的可能的作家的文字相比,可能的作家包括斯伯丁,雷格登,和考得里奧利佛,結論是我們的分析支持該理論認為,摩門經是由多個十九世紀的作家所寫,更確切地說,我們發現強烈支持斯伯丁雷格登著作理論。在所有的數據中,我們發現雷格登是作為統一的力量。他的訊號主宰了摩門經,而若是其他候選人有更多的可能時,雷格登往往也是隱藏在陰影裡。該研究並未包括斯密約瑟為一個可能的作家,理由是,因為斯密約瑟的寫作純正例子尚未被發現的,由於斯密約瑟是使用抄寫文士和合著者,目前並無文字可確定是斯密約瑟自已寫的。[i]

根據這種理論觀點,雷格登瑟耐從匹茲堡出版者獲得了所羅門斯伯丁歷史小說的手稿。該理論聲稱,小說包含了摩門經中的“歷史的部分“,雷格登瑟耐重新加工,加上他自己的神學,並擴大到目前的摩門經作品。當然了, 雷格登瑟耐也應該有參考1925年Ethan Smith (和斯密約瑟無親屬關係)所寫的《View of the Hebrews (對希伯來人的看法)》, 書中呼籲將美洲原住民正視為以色列失去的支族並將他們帶回基督教群體。關於美洲原住民的可能來源的推測在當時在該地是十分普遍的。

 

下面的二十二件證據表明了雷格登瑟耐在摩門經的寫作上發揮了核心作用。[ii]

證據分為四個大標題。

連接雷格登瑟耐和斯伯丁的歷史證據:


1。雷格登瑟耐和斯伯丁使用同一個郵局。顯然, 斯伯丁留下了一個題為”手稿發現”的手稿在雷格登瑟耐常去印刷店裡。在某一時間,手稿不見了。據報導,斯伯丁懷疑雷格登瑟耐已取走它。
2。約翰溫特(John Winter)報稱,雷格登瑟耐在他的書房裡保存有一個斯伯丁手稿的複製品。
3。熟悉斯伯丁的”手稿發現”的目擊者證明,”手稿發現”類似摩門經,只是缺乏宗教內容。
4。在任何人知道它們之間的連接以前, 雷格登瑟耐和斯伯丁都是獨立命名的作家。
5。 1839年,雷格登寫了一封信,否認他在摩門經的組成作用。他的信中有著明顯謬誤。
6。 1888年,沃爾特雷格登瑟耐 — 雷格登瑟耐的孫子, 說,他祖父製造摩門經的角色是一個家族的秘密。

牽連雷格登的文字和神學證據:

 7。雷格登的導師亞歷山大坎貝爾的神學穿插在整個摩門經中。
8。雷格登和坎貝爾—-在1830年上之前,兩人不同意的議題,摩門經則強烈贊同雷格登的意見。
9。在1828年6月遺失第一個 116頁後的摩門經各款可能增加部份描述了—-洗禮後重生,這符合了雷格登與沃爾特斯科特(Walter Scott)在1828年3月的會晤後的信仰改變。
10。 “人類之子”( “children of men")這句話在摩門經(The Book of Mormon)出現特別高的頻率的部份 所含有的神學內容反映出雷格登1830年之前的看法。
11。眾所周知,雷格登曾與斯密約瑟一起製作摩西書(The Book of Moses)。“人類之子”( “children of men")這句話在摩西書出現特別高的頻率的部份 所含有的神學內容反映出雷格登1830年之前的看法。

連接雷格登瑟耐和斯密約瑟的1830年之前的歷史證據:

 12。 1830年之前,據報,雷格登瑟耐作了多次發言,他表示了他對摩門經的預知,和一個即將崛起一個新宗教。
13。在1830年8月改革浸信會大會中,雷格登談到了一個更全面的啟示的來臨,和一個福音的完全恢復的需要。
14。雷格登瑟耐否認在1830年以前和斯密約瑟會過面 ,但一些人報告說,在此日期之前看到他在斯密約瑟的附近,和在雷格登的日曆中含有空白時期,在關鍵時刻,他是會有時間去會見斯密約瑟的。

15。 1868年雷格登寫了一封信,他自稱知道摩門經密封部分的內容。
16。詹姆斯杰弗裡(James Jeffery),一位雷格登的朋友作證說,在1844年他聽說雷格登說,斯密約瑟用斯伯丁手稿捏造出摩門經。

  有關雷格登曾與斯密約瑟之間的長期關係的歷史證據:

 17。幾乎就在他的洗禮之後,雷格登就擔任如同教會負責人一樣。當他正式會見了斯密約瑟,他們開始製作摩西書(The Book of Moses)的工作,摩西書是一部背書了有關雷格登1828年所謂洗禮後的靈性重生的“發現” 的經書。
18。在1828年三月,   雷格登—-誡命與摩門經一書的“啟示者”試圖限制斯密約瑟的角色在翻譯的範圍而已。
19。 1863年雷格登說,斯密約瑟應被認為是翻譯者而雷格登是以色列的聚集者。

20。雷格登瑟耐和斯密約瑟之間的權力拉鋸鬥爭是可以理解的—- 如果考慮到他們的脆弱性和相互依附性。
21。雷格登瑟耐和斯密約瑟合作於聯合的啟示—- 記錄在”教義和聖約”中。他們合作於改變啟示。他們合作於非法金融交易。
22。在1844年雷格登瑟耐抓住斯密約瑟死亡的機會,鼓動憤世嫉俗奪權,威脅要“揭露教會的秘密” ,並自稱擁有新的啟示和異象。

最後一個問題:
如果雷格登瑟耐對後代沒有什麼好隱瞞的,他為什麼要求他太太許諾—- 在他死後燒毀他的所有著作?


[i] Jockers et al., Reassessing authorship of the Book of Mormon using delta and nearest shrunken centroid classification, Literary and Linguistic Computing, December, 2008

[ii]詳見: Sidney Rigdon: Creating the Book of Mormon. Craig Criddle. http://www.truthandgrace.com/Rigdon2.htm#7 

http://sidneyrigdon.com/criddle/rigdon1.htm#16

摩門經的可能抄襲來源之一 —– Ethan Smith 的《View of the Hebrews (對希伯來人的看法)》

摩門經的可能抄襲來源之一  —–  Ethan Smith 的《View of the Hebrews (對希伯來人的看法)》

 John He

     

本文是 摩門經 & 摩門教義 的 靈感抄襲來源。 (內有文章!!!—-天下文章一大抄!!!)的延伸補充。

 本文:

伊坦斯密(Ethan Smith, 和斯密約瑟無親屬關係)是在 Vermont (威爾滿/佛蒙特)州的 Poultney (普特尼)的一間公理會教會(Congregationalist)的牧師。

伊坦斯密的第一版《對希伯來人的看法》發表於1823年。第二個擴大版出現在1825年,[i]  較《摩門經》早出版了5年,較斯密約瑟開始「翻譯」《摩門經》早了兩年。

伊坦斯密的理論在他的同代神學家和普通人中並不罕見,書中呼籲將美洲原住民正視為在公元前8世紀被亞述人俘虜後失踪的以色列十支派[ii]並將他們帶回基督教群體。關於美洲原住民的可能來源的推測在當時在該地是十分普遍的。 Terryl Givens評論此作品是“一歷史,摘錄,勸勉,和理論的不雅混雜膾。“[iii]

伊坦斯密的思索推測是從偽經,埃斯德拉斯二(Apocrypha, 2 Esdras)中的13:41一節而啟航[iv],說是十支派前往一個遙遠的國家,“從來沒有人類居住的地方“,這意味著斯密把它解釋為是美洲。

伊坦斯密試圖通過使印第安人的 “潛在的值得拯救的歸信“,把印第安人從當代土堆建設者神話裡拯救出來。[v] “如果我們的土著被確定為以色列支派,“ 斯密寫道,“美國基督徒可能會覺得,一個偉大的繼承對象就在這裡,就是,在恢復那些’以色列的家族迷失的羊’一事上他們可能有一個主要的經辦權“[vi]

《對希伯來人的看法》和《摩門經》相似之處

 有人認為,《對希伯來人的看法》和《摩門經》有顯著的相似之處。

1922年B.H.羅伯茨(1857年至1933年),一個突出的LDS的代言人(耶穌基督後期聖徒教會七十員)和歷史學家,[vii]被摩門教使徒詹姆斯E塔爾米奇(James E. Talmage)要求回答一個非信徒的五個關鍵問題。目前還不清楚羅伯茨是否是第一次聽到《對希伯來人的看法》或是什麼促使他作出比較,但他製作一份機密報告,總結了18點兩部作品之間的相似處。[viii]

這位20世紀初的耶穌基督後期聖徒教會七十員也作了一部名為《Studies of the Book of Mormon摩門經學習)》的書,在書中他批判性地檢驗了《摩門經》的來源和宣稱。

在給摩門教總會會長統格蘭特希伯(Heber J. Grant)及其他教會官員的一封信裡,羅伯茨呼籲“所有的弟兄們越來越熟悉這些摩門經問題,並為他們找到答案,因為這是一個問題,它將關切著現在和未來教會青年的信念,以及諸如可能從外面世界來到我們這裡的詢問者 “[ix]  。 

 羅伯茨相似之處名單包括:

l  廣泛地引用舊約以賽亞書的預言

l  美洲印第安人起源自以色列人

l  未來以色列的聚集和遺失的十支派的復聚

l  從舊世界到新世界的民族—-通過遇到“多水” 的“海” 的向北漫長旅途

l  移民者分裂成文明族群組和不文明族群組兩組, 它們之間有長期的戰爭,和最終,不文明族群組毀滅了文明族群組

l  假設所有土著人民是以色列人的後裔和他們的語言從希伯來文而來

l  用“黃葉” 埋葬了“遺失的書”

l  有軍事觀察站或“瞭望塔”俯視他們的廣泛軍事要塞的描述

l  從君​​主制到共和制的政府形式的改變

l  在古代美洲宣講福音[x]

David Persuitte 在他的書《Joseph Smith and the Origins of The Book of Mormon (斯密約瑟和摩門經來源)》中顯示許多《對希伯來人的看法》和《摩門經》相似的段落,但也注意到並沒有任何一段直接抄襲,他也沒有證明斯密約瑟是否曾經讀過或曾經碰到過這本書。但是 Ethan Smith 牧師為支持他的書曾經到訪過拋邁拉,所以斯密約瑟曾經遇過這本書的說法是有說服力的。但是如果這個抄襲真正存在的話,那麼考得里奧利佛才應該是被責備的人。

考得里奧利佛

考得里奧利佛在1800年代的時候曾受教育並被訓練為一個排字工/印刷工的助手,並且一直在Poultney Gazette(普特尼公報)工作,直到1823年夏天,也就是 Ethan Smith 牧師將《對希伯來人的看法》手稿帶去付印的時候。(該報紙於1823年12月改名為 Northern Spectator 北方目擊者報)。就在那之後考得里奧利佛離開了報社,然後幾個月後斯密約瑟報告了當年秋分(1823年9月21日)他的第一次異象這中間明顯的關聯是斯密約瑟和考得里奧利佛是有關係的並常常在一起。考得里奧利佛在普特尼公報的工作大概不會是他第一次聽到《對希伯來人的看法》。考得里奧利佛的家人,包括他的父親 William (威廉)和母親 Keziah 都是 Ethan Smith 牧師在1821年11月到普特尼的教會以前就已經是該會長期的會友。Ethan Smith 牧師公開的在證道理面講述他的後來放到《對希伯來人的看法》的理論。

總結:

筆者認為引用福恩布羅迪(Fawn Brodie)和羅伯茨的話來總結本文是很合適的:

 福恩布羅迪(Fawn Brodie),第一個重要的寫非理想化斯密約瑟的傳記歷史學家[xi],認為斯密約瑟的理論—-美洲印第安人之希伯來的起源是來自《對希伯來人的看法》。 “它可能永遠不會被證明—-約瑟寫摩門經是否先《對希伯來人的看法》”布羅迪在1945年寫道“,但兩書之間引人注目的相似之處很難說只是一個純屬巧合案例。[xii]

 羅伯茨在《Studies of the Book of Mormon摩門經學習)》中這樣指出:“伊坦斯密的《對希伯來人的看法》是否提供了斯密約瑟的摩門經的結構材料?在本書多處篇頁已指出,在原書的許多事情,已在摩門經裡,很可能已提出了許多重要的事情。並不只僅僅是少數事情,一個或兩個,或半打,而是很多;很多事情相似是一個事實,它們累積的力量,讓他們如此嚴重地威脅到斯密約瑟有關摩門經的起源的故事。“

 

尾注:


[ii] “Although not predominant, the lost tribes theory did appeal to religious thinkers eager to link Indians to the Bible. From the seventeenth century onward, both Christians and Jews had collected evidence that the Indians had Jewish origins. Jonathan Edwards Jr. noted the similarities between the Hebrew and Mohican languages. Such Indian practices as ‘anointing their heads, paying a price for their wives, observing the feast of harvest’ were cited as Jewish parallels. Besides Edwards, John Eliot, Samuel Sewall, Roger Williams, William Penn, James Adair, and Elias Boudinot expressed opinions or wrote treatises on the Israelite connection." Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 96.

[iii] Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 161.

[v] Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 2004), 123.

[vii] Roberts was ranked the greatest intellectual in Mormon history in surveys by LDS scholars Leonard Arrington in 1969 and Stan Larson in 1993. Leonard J. Arrington, “The Intellectual Tradition of the Latter-day Saints", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 4 (Spring 1969), 13-26; Stan Larson, “Intellectuals in Mormonism: An Update", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 26 (Fall 1993), 187-89.

[viii] According to LDS scholars, Roberts’ study was intended to “preempt criticisms that could be leveled at the Book of Mormon." Ashurst-McGee, Mark (2003). “A One-sided View of Mormon Origins". FARMS Review (Maxwell Institute) 15 (2): pp. 309–364. http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=513. Retrieved 2006-12-22. . After Roberts’ death, copies were made of the parallels, which “circulated among a limited circle in Utah." (Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 47fn.) Part of Roberts manuscript was published in 1956 in the Rocky Mountain Mason and the complete text was published in 1980 by noted anti-Mormons Jerald and Sandra Tanner. In 1985 a scholarly edition of the work was published by University of Illinois Press, and a second edition was published by Signature Books in 1992. FARMS book review.

[ix] December 29, 1921 in Studies of the Book of Mormon, 47. See Brigham D. Madsen, “Reflections on LDS Disbelief in the Book of Mormon as History", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 30 (Fall 1997), 87-89. Concerning the Book of Mormon accounts of three anti-Christs in Nephite America, Roberts wrote that they “are all of one breed and brand; so nearly alike that one mind is the author of them, and that a young and undeveloped, but piously inclined mind. The evidence I sorrowfully submit, points to Joseph Smith as their creator." Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, 271.

[xi] “Bernard DeVoto considered it Brodie’s distinction ‘that she has raised writing about Mormonism to the dignity of history for the first time.'" Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 162.

[xii] Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet, 2nd. ed.,(New York:Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), 46-47.

參考文獻資料:

 

  1. Smith, Ethan (2002). View of the Hebrews 1825. Colfax, Wisconsin: Hayriver Press. ISBN 1-930679-61-0

2.       Wikipedia, View of the Hebrews, 23/04/2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_of_the_Hebrews#cite_note-3

  1. View of the Hebrews, 1823 first edition
  2. View of the Hebrews, 1825 edition
  3. Biography of Ethan Smith