Posts tagged ‘耶穌基督後期聖徒教會’

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. 
廣告

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.』-

摩門經證人證詞有超重大疑義,經不起檢驗。(耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(俗稱摩門教)的拱心石—-《摩門經》初驗不合格系列)

摩門經證人證詞有超重大疑義,經不起檢驗。(耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(俗稱摩門教)的拱心石—-《摩門經》初驗不合格系列)

 John He 編制

 

 摩門教及摩門經最初的金三角:   (左)雷格登瑟耐  (中)考得里奧利佛    (右) 斯密約瑟

 

  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。  《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。(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》系列)摩門經的真正作者是誰? —-斯伯丁雷格登是 摩門經作者理論。  及 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。

序話:

在耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(俗稱摩門教)創教教主斯密約瑟住處—美國紐約州 Palmyra拋邁拉)地區1824年秋季至1825春季發生的基督教大復興,讓斯密約瑟第一次開始“將他們的挖寶關注轉變到一個宗教的陰謀。“  

1826年(在斯密約瑟”翻譯”摩門經前)他因欺詐鄰居的金錢被拖進法庭,他正在找一個騙術,一個受騙者不能起訴你或要求退還他們錢的騙術。

有了雷格登瑟耐和他的表親考得里奧利佛的”共謀大計”,斯密約瑟認為該有新的選擇來突破財源困境—–宗教是完美的選擇。

今天,根據1834年至2010年一些摩門教反對者及摩門經考證研究者考查各種文件紀錄,甚至包括計算機分析摩門經文本,DNA研究,報紙的報導,納稅記錄,人口普查數據記錄,人頭稅的文件,縣史,家族史等綜整推測而可以非常自信地指出: 在19世紀,摩門教背後真正的力量就是雷格登瑟耐。

故事的情節其實很簡單。

斯伯丁把他歷史小說的手稿給與俄亥俄州匹茲堡的印刷廠。雷格登瑟耐常去這家印刷廠,他要么複製或偷了手稿。雷格登瑟耐重新工作,加上他自己的神學,並擴大到目前的摩門經作品。最終,他勾搭上了考得里奧利佛和斯密約瑟而產生出摩門經。為了掩蓋他們的踪跡,這三人,摩門教及摩門經最初的金三角,聲稱從來沒有彼此先認識。摩門教的歷史是說: 考得里奧利佛是在1829年才幫助斯密約瑟翻譯金頁片,雷格登瑟耐是於 1830年,在摩門經的出版後才加入斯密約瑟的新教會。

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。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。

這樣,斯伯丁未曾出版的手稿的歷史浪漫演義最終落入斯密約瑟的手中,兩個秘密幫助他的同夥,秘密地轉化它成為摩門教的聖書,其內容也成為目前摩門教信仰的骨幹。

到底是誰寫了摩門經?當然,斯伯丁之謎可以讓人們了解精心設置的故事是怎麼發生的,仔細審查那些誰的參與是與它關係最密切,由此假設而得到一個合理推論, ”誰撰寫了摩門經?”—-這也許是史上最成功的宗教騙局。真的騙很大,超級宇宙大![i]

摩門教及摩門經最初的金三角為了增強摩門經的可信度,竟啟用祭出了證人的證詞此一法寶,這般法術卻也迷惑了不計其數,眾多不知其底細的宗教追求者。

 本文:

 自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? 今天我們就來檢驗檢驗。

 摩爾門經三位證人的證詞

願此書所到的各國、各族、各方、各民都知道:我們藉著父神及我們的主耶穌基督的恩典,見過記載這部記錄的頁片。這是尼腓人和他們的兄弟拉曼人的記錄,也是雅列人的紀錄;雅列人來自曾提到的那座塔。我們也知道此書已藉著神的恩賜和能力而翻譯,因為祂的聲音已向我們宣告此事;因此我們確確實實地知道這部書是真實的。並且我們見證我們曾看到頁片上的鐫文;我們藉著神的大能,而非人的力量,看到這些頁片。我們以鄭重的言詞宣告,神的一位天使自天而降,帶來了頁片,放在我們的眼前,我們都看了且見到了頁片以及其上的鐫文;我們知道那是藉著父神和我們的主耶穌基督的恩典,我們才能看到並作證這些事是真實的。在我們眼中這是多麼奇妙。然而,主的聲音命令我們必須為此作證;因此,為了遵從神的命令,我們為這些事情作見證。我們也知道如果我們忠於基督,我們的衣服必不會沾上世人的血,我們會在基督的審判寶座前,被判為潔淨無瑕,並能與祂永恆地同住於天上。願榮耀歸於父、子及聖靈,他們是一神。阿們。

 奧利佛.考德里                           
大衛.惠特茂                           
馬丁.哈里斯


摩爾門經八位證人的證詞

願此書所到的各國、各族、各方、各民都知道:此書的譯者小約瑟 .斯密,曾把提到的頁片給我們看過,這些頁片看來像金製的;斯密氏譯過的每一頁片葉我們都以手觸摸過;我們也看到了其上的鐫文,看來像是古代作品,也很精巧細緻。我們以鄭重的言詞作證,斯密氏確曾給我們看過,因為我們都看見過並且掂量過,所以確實知道斯密氏擁有我們所說的頁片。茲將我們的名字公諸於界,向全世界作證我們所看到的事。我們絕無虛言,神可作證。

 

克里遜.惠特茂

亥倫.裴治

雅各.惠特茂

老約瑟.斯密

小彼得.惠特茂

海侖.斯密

約翰.惠特茂

撒母耳.斯密

 


這些摩門經證人是一群小約瑟 .斯密同時代的人,他們說他們看到斯密所說的金頁片,斯密說他從金頁片翻譯了摩門經。

 先來看看—-摩爾門經三位證人:

 摩爾門經三位證人是一組三個早期後期聖徒運動領導人,他們在一份1830年聲明中稱,一個天使已經給他們看到斯密所說的金頁片,斯密說他從金頁片翻譯了摩門經。他們聽到了上帝的聲音證明,此書已藉著神的恩賜和能力而翻譯。

三位證人是: 奧利佛.考德里;大衛.惠特茂;馬丁.哈里斯,其共同的證詞,並結合一個單獨的摩爾門經八位證人聲明,已幾乎印刷在自1830年首次出版的每版摩門經裡。

 毫無疑問的,三名證人都是和約瑟 .斯密有密切關係的。三名證人也都有類似的神奇(magic)世界觀。[ii]

 諷刺的是,最終,這三個證人都與約瑟 .斯密鬧翻絕交和被驅逐出教會。

 考得里奧利佛

考得里奧利佛(Oliver Cowdery)是摩門經的主要抄寫員。

摩門教也自稱(見教約110)1836年4月3日耶穌基督在嘉德蘭聖殿向約瑟 · 斯密及奧利佛 · 考德里顯現。摩西、以利亞和以來加等眾先知也向此摩門教金三角中二者顯現,交託聖職權鑰云云。

這裡我們需要對早期摩門教”金三角”的第三個人- —-斯密約瑟的神秘表兄弟,考得里奧利佛作些描述。奧利佛年青時會使用了一個占卜棒來尋寶的。[iii]

他的早期生活幾乎不為人所知,一直到Cowdrey, Wayne L. (2005-07-30). ”誰撰寫了摩門經?”Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon?: The Spalding Enigma. 乙書的出版。

事實證明,考得里奧利佛一直呈現出是負責首先介紹斯密約瑟給雷格登瑟耐的人,然後暗地裡去充當他們之間的中間人。

後來,在斯密約瑟準備出版摩門經時, 他起了 “翻譯” 抄寫員的作用。雖然依教會歷史記載,斯密約瑟和考得里奧利佛他們第一次會面是在 1829年四月,然而有令人信服的證據表明這兩個表兄弟們早已,至少在1822年已相識。

”誰撰寫了摩門經?” 乙書還透露,考得里奧利佛早期的生活事件已從摩門教的歷史被略去的真正原因,是因為斯密約瑟和考得里奧利佛串謀一個事情— 誘使富裕的馬丁哈里斯資助3,000元來印刷摩門經。為了實現自己的目標,斯密約瑟和考得里奧利佛不得不作出讓哈里斯認為,他們在1829年之前是完全陌生的。上帝只把他們帶到一起,因為他知道斯密約瑟是需要抄寫員來完成“作品。” 。

在考得里奧利佛的其他秘密是,事實上,他有一個兄弟和其他親戚住在俄亥俄州的雷格登瑟耐的附近,他本人在1820年代中期在訪問這些親戚中間,考得里奧利佛第一次遇見過雷格登瑟耐。[iv]

後來,考得里奧利佛於1838年時在嘉德蘭時,曾指控斯密約瑟和Fanny Alger的通姦是“骯髒,污穢,污髒的事“[v],同時還欺騙與教導不真實的教義[vi]。斯密約瑟則否認這些指控,並指控他為一騙子。[vii]  現在教會記錄顯示阿爾及爾小姐Fanny Alger是斯密約瑟的第一個“靈妻“[viii]。奧利弗說的是實話!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[ix],被開除教籍後加入衛理公會教會。期間他曾否定摩門經。[x]

斯密約瑟和摩門教會領導群也控訴他犯了竊盜罪、欺詐罪、偽證罪、偽造罪、通姦罪,同時聲稱他是的至惡無賴幫派之頭。[xi]

斯密約瑟曾 把考得里奧利佛列入“太壞而不想提起; 和我們喜歡忘記他們“之名單。[xii]

考得里奧利佛曾當眾承認,他因為自己和摩門教有所關連而深感難過和羞恥。[xiii]

在1848年秋天,摩門教會聲稱他重返教會[xiv];但他們在同一年內不久,又指控考得里與叛教者 William E. McLellin 一起「試圖再次重組"那個國度"」[xv]

長期抱病的考得里奧利佛沒有否認他曾經在異象裡面見到金頁片的見證(史上最成功的宗教騙局的最初金三角怎麼會否認?),十年後又返回了摩門教會。

考得里奧利佛,據言是擔任摩門經的大部分翻譯的主要文士抄寫員,曾申明,“我寫,用我自己的筆,寫整個摩門經(除了少數幾頁),因為它也從先知斯密約瑟的嘴唇乏說出,當他藉著神的恩賜和力量翻譯。。。。雷格登瑟耐沒有寫。斯伯丁先生也沒有寫。我自己寫的,因為它也從先知的嘴唇而出。[xvi] 是啊!史上最成功的宗教騙局的最初金三角只能這麼繼續硬著頭皮說。

金三角雷格登瑟耐和考得里奧利佛都否認他們寫了《摩門經》。但是否認的原因是因為他們真正沒有參與《摩門經》的寫作過程,或者《摩門經》本來就是史上最成功的宗教騙局金三角共謀所製作編寫的則不得而知。

哈里斯馬丁

哈里斯馬丁是資助摩門經的翻譯和出版的金主。

馬丁‧哈里斯曾是一位富農,當地(Palmyra, New York)的長老教會牧師稱他為“一個有異象的狂信者”[xvii], “不管他去那裡了,他總在他周圍看見異象和超自然的顯現”。[xviii]

馬丁‧哈里斯對斯密約瑟的奇異事情發生興趣,認為有幸恭逢其盛,打算出資來出版這本斯密約瑟所謂的天書,參與斯密約瑟此一歷史盛會。馬丁‧哈里斯的原先如意賺錢算盤之一是透過出書賺版費,他太太露西哈里斯說: “[馬丁‧哈里斯]說: “如果你不要管我,我可以通過它賺錢。” “[xix]

回想當年(1828年四月) ,哈里斯馬丁曾和他的太太露西(Lucy Harris)一起去Harmony PA看斯密約瑟。後來露西離開他的丈夫回到Palmyra PA,因為露西深信斯密約瑟是一個沒有真正擁有金葉片的騙子,她相信斯密約瑟斯的主要目標是詐騙她的丈夫所有的財產。1829年她收集證人和在紐約里昂(Lyons),紐約對斯密約瑟斯提出刑事指控,試圖證明斯密約瑟斯是假裝有黃金葉片,以騙取她的丈夫。審判在斯密約瑟斯缺席下進行,但在法官聽取哈里斯馬丁證詞後被駁回。[xx]

走筆至此,筆者有一個不現實(不可能實現)的想法:

如果, 我是說如果,如果當年斯密約瑟斯可以出示《摩門經》的「原始」頁片「摩門經金片」給《摩門經》的印刷出資者哈里斯馬丁的妻子露西看,使她相信斯密約瑟斯的主要目標不是詐騙她的丈夫所有的財產,如果今天《摩門經》的「原始」頁片「摩門經金片」都還在,或者當時已有攝影機或手機可拍下視頻作證, 則今天筆者也就不用多費筆墨如此辛苦敲字打鍵盤了。

事實上,摩門教到今天—2011年,還拿不出有力證據—-拿不出直接的證據,拿不出明顯的證據,拿不出客觀的證據,拿不出無可辯駁的證據,來說服世人它所的聲稱是一個真理。

…..&^%$&^….. 有點小離題了,還是言歸主題,接著說吧!

馬丁‧哈里斯原先認為出版摩門經賣售摩門經亦能賺錢,原先認為只承擔50%印刷費用,沒想到後來,賺錢無望,又在斯密約瑟的宗教式—永恆的詛咒刑罰的恐嚇下,馬丁‧哈里斯為摩門經的出版,抵押了他的農場,以支付3000美元給印刷商Egbert B. Grandin作為印刷成本。[xxi]

後來,馬丁‧哈里斯成為《摩門經》三位見證人之一。

再後來,馬丁失去了他的農場。

其實,馬丁‧哈里斯是一個信仰極不穩定的宗教追求者,一輩子總共換了超過13次的教派。最初是貴格會教徒,再來是信普救說者,再來是復原主義者,然後是浸信會教友,下一個是長老會教徒,然後才是摩門教徒[xxii]。哈里斯馬丁於1837年被逐出摩門教會後,他又改變了八次教派。最後才在1842年又回到摩門教[xxiii]

楊百翰的弟弟Phineas Young於1841年12月31日時從俄亥俄州,嘉德蘭寫了一封信給他哥哥,寫道:「….哈里斯馬丁是震蕩教派的忠實信徒,他說他對震蕩教派的見證比對摩門經的見證還要重要。」[xxiv]

哈里斯馬丁也相信震盪教派的「聖卷聖書」也是一位天使帶來的。[xxv]

在爭奪斯密約瑟]的繼承權時,哈里斯馬丁也曾簽署了一份聲明,宣稱:”….主已使我知道,惠特茂大衛就是這個人。….來接替他[斯密約瑟]…” 。[xxvi] 從後來歷史發展來看,哈里斯馬丁的”主已使我知道”,當然又是吹牛胡扯,因為後來是楊百翰爭得繼承權,成為摩門教第二任會長。

在 1838年8月的Elder’s Journal中,斯密約瑟譴責哈里斯馬丁說:「…鄙視之下,對紳士們來說,即便只是知道他這個人就已經是一個很大的犧牲了。教會原先對他的行為有所拘束,但現在已經鬆綁了,他可以做任何令人厭惡的事,要欺騙、說謊、詐騙和各種放蕩的事都可以。」[xxvii]

教會官方報紙曾如此批判他及其他人:“撒謊騙人之靈在他們之中 … 魔鬼是他們的父親,… 每一個有靈心的人會看到哈里斯的表情—是神的憤怒在他身上。“[xxviii]

 馬丁‧哈里斯因他的幻覺天性,曾說他用“信仰之眼“或“心靈之眼“看到了斯密約瑟金頁片。[xxix]  既然他承認並沒有真的用肉眼看到金頁片,則應該自動消除他作為證人的資格。這當然也證明了摩門教是騙人的,而金頁片根本不存在,沒有人真正看到他們。

惠特茂大衛

大衛惠特茂是奧利佛‧考得里的朋友。

摩門經翻譯工作大部份在惠特茂家中進行,大衛的父親彼得‧惠特茂邀請約瑟住進他菲也特的農舍直到翻譯完成為止。在1887年,David Whitmer(大衛·惠特茂)曾宣稱他有一張由金頁片上抄下來的文字,是 Martin Harris(馬丁·哈里斯)曾經拿給哥倫比亞學院(即為美國紐約現在哥倫比亞大學的哥倫比亞學院)的語言和古典文學教授 Charles Anthon(查理士·安東)看過[xxx]

大衛·惠特茂也是奧利佛‧考得里妻子的哥哥(奧利佛‧考得里之妻是伊麗莎白‧安‧惠特茂Elizabeth Ann Whitmer)。

1837年的夏天,在嘉德蘭時大衛·惠特茂曾向一位女先知宣誓效忠,這位女先知可以利用一顆黑色的先見之石,跳舞恍惚出神以求降神。[xxxi]

大衛·惠特茂在不同的時間裡,曾屬於至少三組摩門教分裂出來的教會,但他去世時仍拒絕猶他摩門教教會。1847年時他向考得里奧利佛宣佈,說他將作為 New Church of Christ的先知,而 Oliver則作為副會長。[xxxii]

 大衛·惠特茂於1887年時曾說:「如果你們相信我對摩門經的證詞;如果你們相信神真的對我們三位證人說話;那麼我要告訴你們,神在1838年6月又再度自高天對我說話,要我離開後期聖徒們,和他們劃清界線。」[xxxiii]

大衛·惠特茂曾被約瑟·斯密譴責是: 「被人騎的愚蠢動物」和「叫聲只會帶來詛咒而非祝福的一頭驢」[xxxiv]

因為他的長壽,大衛惠特茂成為最多被採訪的”三名證人”。大衛·惠特茂多次改變關於他看到金頁片的故事,後來稱他發現金頁片平放在田野,後來還告訴奧森普拉特(Orson Pratt),金頁片與各種銅板,金片,拉班劍,烏陵和土明是在桌子上的。[xxxv]

 像馬丁哈里斯一樣,大衛·惠特茂後來作證說,他沒有用他的肉眼看到金頁片:他說他用“信仰之眼“看到了由一個天使操作的金頁片。[xxxvi]

同樣地,既然大衛·惠特茂承認並沒有真的用肉眼看到金頁片,則應該自動消除他作為證人的資格。這當然也證明了摩門教是騙人的,而金頁片根本不存在,沒有人真正看到他們。摩門經是史上最成功的宗教騙局金三角共謀所製作編寫的。

再來看看—-摩爾門經八位證人:

 摩爾門經八位證人是的兩組摩門經金頁片“特殊證人“的第二組。不可思議的 ,他們全都是惠特茂或斯密家庭的成員:

老約瑟·斯密是約瑟·斯密的父親,海侖和撒母耳是約瑟·斯密的兄弟。克里遜,雅各,彼得和約翰是大衛惠特茂的兄弟,亥倫·裴治是他的姐夫。[xxxvii]

與三位證人不同的是,八位證人作證說,他們都看到和觸摸到摩門經金頁片。

另一個區別是,也是令人不解的是,他們說”斯密氏確曾給我們看過”,而不是像三位證人所說是”神的一位天使自天而降,帶來了頁片,放在我們的眼前,我們都看了”。

 克里遜惠特茂於 1835年去世,他的弟弟小彼得惠特茂次年去世。1838年,倖存下來的惠特茂家族在密蘇里州遠西城領導權的鬥爭期間與小斯密約瑟形同陌路,和被驅逐出教會。惠特茂家族都沒有重新加入耶穌基督後期聖徒教會。

 雖然八名證人有沒有否認他們摩門經或金頁片真實性的證詞不得而知,然而,在1838年,前摩門教領袖斯蒂芬伯內特(Stephen Burnett)聲稱馬丁哈里斯曾告訴他,“八名證人從來沒有見過 [金頁片] 並因此而猶豫是否要簽署該文件,但後來被說服去做。”[xxxviii]

 結論:

其實,證人的多寡並不重要,證人的可信性和證人證詞的可靠性才是重點。證人可能是有較多或能較少的可信性,或者是完全沒有可信性的。一個可信的證人是“能提供證據,是值得信任”。

 證人證詞往往是存在缺陷的,部分,甚至全部是毫無意義的。這可能發生,因為目擊證人辨認中的漏洞(如錯誤的觀察和回憶,或偏見),或者因為證人是在說謊。

證人應是誠信公正,最好又是獨立的第三者。

如果以此標準來衡量摩門經的三位見證人及八位證人,則他們實在是不適當,也不是符合資格的人選。

 於1838年12月16日斯密約瑟這樣說:「McLellin, 約翰.惠特茂, 大衛惠特茂, 考得里奧利佛, 和哈里斯馬丁的品性都太卑劣了,不要記得他們還比較好」[xxxix]

 這樣,斯密約瑟質疑了至少四名證人的品性正直,在他們離開了或被驅逐出教會之前。

 證人也曾推翻並否定自己早先的證詞,摩門教第二任會長楊百翰的話證實了他們的否認:「摩爾門經的見證人中,儘管手摸過金頁片並與同神的天使交談,一些人後來懷疑而且也不相信自己曾經見過天使。」[xl]

 綜上所述,

 三個證人都有可質疑的品格誠信問題。

部份八位證人也有可質疑的品格誠信問題。

況且,摩爾門經所有證人(三位證人和八位證人)都是斯密約瑟的家庭,親密的朋友,或財務支持者。考得里奧利佛,亥倫.裴治(Page)和五個惠特茂家人是有姻親關係的。[xli]

 馬克吐溫後來開玩笑說:“我不能感到更加滿意和放心,如果整個惠特茂家人作證。“[xlii]

 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。

  

尾注:


[ii]Grant H. Palmer, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 175-76.

[iii]Palmer, 179: “Oliver Cowdery came from a similar background. He was a treasure hunter and ‘rodsman’ before he met Joseph Smith in 1829. William Cowdery, his father, was associated with a treasure-seeking group in Vermont, and it is from them, one assumes that Oliver learned the art of working with a divining rod. Joseph told Oliver that he knew the ‘rod of nature’ Oliver used ‘has told you many things.'" See Vogel EMD, 1: 599-621.

 

[iv]From Buffalo, at the western extremity of Lake Erie, it was only a short journey to the Western Reserve country of Ohio, where the family of Oliver’s elder brother, Erastus Cowdery, along with other Cowdery cousins, were then living. In this context, it is appropriate to recall that one of Erastus Cowdery’s near neighbors in Trumbull County, Ohio, between 1819-1822, was none other than the Rev. Sidney Rigdon. The January, 1822 departure of Sidney Rigdon to accept a ministerial appointment in nearby Pittsburgh presented no major difficulty to his continuing to frequent his old haunts near Erastus Cowdery’s home. Not only did Sidney Rigdon’s in-laws live in that area, but in May of 1822, Rigdon is known to have preached a funeral sermon at Auburn, just two dozen miles northwest of Erastus Cowdery’s home, and the main stage line road north passed within walking easy distance of Erastus’ farm. …Whatever the exact circumstances may have been during that distant era, the opportunities were certainly there for Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Joseph Smith to have met and interacted together, either in western New York northern Pennsylvania or eastern Ohio. http://www.google.co.nz/imgres?imgurl=http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga/lyons3a.gif&imgrefurl=http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga/saga02b.htm&usg=__i_l-SSg2Qj3ARADvtoh9HO3wLgo=&h=342&w=320&sz=24&hl=en&start=1&zoom=1&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=rF4_wJg1jbeHHM:&tbnh=120&tbnw=112&prev=/images%3Fq%3DDetroit%2BManuscript%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1T4GGLL_enNZ332NZ332%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=dYFATZi0NI22sAOt_72jCA

[v]Brodie, 182. The Cowdery quotation is from a letter to his brother. “B.H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God, 2: 308-9; Encyclopedia of Mormonism “Book of Mormon Witnesses"; Oliver Cowdery and History of the Church, 3: 14-17

[vi]Private Letter to Brother, Warren Cowdery, by Oliver Cowdery, Jan. 21, 1838

[vii]History of the Church, vol. 3 pp. 16-18 and Elder’s Journal, Joseph Smith, July 1838

[viii]Historical Record, 1886, vol. 5, p. 233

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

[x]Times and Seasons, vol. 2, p. 482 and Improvement Era, Jan. 1969, p 56 and “Oliver Cowdery-The Man Outstanding," Joseph Greehalgh, 1965, p. 28

[xi]Senate Document 189, Feb. 15, 1841, pp. 6-9 and Comprehensive History of the Church, B. H. Roberts, vol. 1, pp. 438-439

[xii]History of the Church, vol. 3:232

[xiii]The True Origin of The Book of Mormon, Charles Shook, 1914, pp. 58-59

[xiv]Historical Record, 1886, vol. 5, p. 201

[xv]The Mormon frontier, Diary of Hosea Stout, vol. 2, p. 336

[xvi]Reuben Miller Journal, 21 October 1848, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah, cited in Deseret News, 13 April 1859.

[xvii]Walker 1986, pp. 34–35

[xviii]John A. Clark letter, August 31, 1840 in EMD, 2: 271

[xix] 露西哈里斯(馬丁的妻子)( Mormonism Unveiled: Testimonies of  Lucy Harris (Martin Harris’wife) 

http://carm.org/religious-movements/mormonism/mormonism-unveiled-testimonies-abigail-harris-and-lucy-harris-martin)

[xxii]Mormonism Unveiled, E. D. Howe, 1834, pp. 260-261

[xxiii]Improvement Era, March 1969, p. 63 and Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 164

[xxiv]Martin Harris – Witness and Benefactor of the Book of Mormon, 1955, p. 52

[xxv]Case Against Mormonism, Tanner, Vol. 2, pp. 50-58; Martin Harris-Witness & Benefactor, BYU 1955 Thesis, Wayne C. Gunnell, p.52.

[xxvi]He signed his name to a statement: “Testimony of three witnesses: We Cheerfully certify…The Lord has made it known to me that David Witmer is the man. David was then called forward, and Joseph and his counselors laid hands upon him, and ordained him to his station, to succeed him…He will be prophet, seer, Revelator and Translator before God." Signed Martin Harris, Leonard Rich, Calvin Beebe. Of course this never came to pass as Brigham young became Joseph Smith’s successor.

[xxvii] Gleanings by the Way, J. A. Clark, pp. 256-257。

[xxviii]Millennial Star, Vol 8 pp124-128.

[xxix]Martin Harris interviews with John A. Clark, 1827 & 1828 in EMD, 2: 270; Jesse Townsend to Phineas Stiles, 24 December 1833, in EMD, 3: 22

[xxx]見惠特茂大衛所寫,名為《Address to All Believers(給所有信者)》的小冊子第11頁。此「Caractors 文件」現在是由基督社區收藏

[xxxi]Biographical Sketches, Lucy Smith, pp. 211-213

[xxxii]Letter to Oliver Cowdery, by David Whitmer, Sept. 8, 1847, printed in the “Ensign of Liberty," 5/1848, p. 93; also see Ensign of Liberty,’ 8/1849, pp. 101-104

[xxxiii]David Whitmer said in 1887: “If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to ‘separate myself from among the Latter-day Saints…'" Address to all believers in Christ, p27, 1887

[xxxiv]History of the Church, vol. 3, p 228

[xxxv]Millennial Star, vol. XL, pp. 771-772

[xxxvi]Palmyra Reflector, March 19, 1831

[xxxvii]Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 79: “Critics pointed out how many of the witnesses were members of the Smith and Whitmer families, implying that they signed out of loyalty or from a self-serving motive….The witnesses were no substitute for making the plates accessible to anyone for examination, but the testimonies showed Joseph—and God—answering doubters with concrete evidence, a concession to the needs of post-Enlightenment Christians."

[xxxviii]Stephen Burnett letter to Lyman E. Johnson dated April 15, 1838. Typed transcript from Joseph Smith Papers, Letter book, April 20, 1837 – February 9, 1843, microfilm reel 2, pp. 64-66, LDS archives; quoted in “Facts On The Book Of Mormon Witnesses," Institute for Religious Research, retrieved from the Internet on 2/16/08

[xxxix]History of the Church, Vol 3, p232

[xl]Journal of Discourses, Vol 7, page 164, 1859)

[xli]Martin Harris bankrolled the publication of the Book of Mormon (See Martin Harris), and Oliver Cowdery was at one point considered the “Second Elder in the Church" behind Joseph Smith (See Oliver Cowdery). Of the Eight Witnesses, IRR notes, “All eight had close personal ties to Joseph Smith’s family—four were David Whitmer’s brothers, a fifth was married to a Whitmer sister, and Joseph’s father and two brothers made up the remaining three." Quoted in “Facts On The Book Of Mormon Witnesses," Institute for Religious Research, retrieved from the Internet on 2/16/08 [2]; Palmer, 179.

[xlii]Quoted in Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986), second ed., 79.

 

參考文獻資  :

 

  1. 1.       ^ B.H. Roberts, ed. History of the Church (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1905), 3: 232.
  2. 2.       ^ Harris and Cowdery rejoined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints shortly before their deaths, and Whitmer founded the Church of Christ (Whitmerite).
  3. 3.       ^Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 79: “Critics pointed out how many of the witnesses were members of the Smith and Whitmer families, implying that they signed out of loyalty or from a self-serving motive….The witnesses were no substitute for making the plates accessible to anyone for examination, but the testimonies showed Joseph—and God—answering doubters with concrete evidence, a concession to the needs of post-Enlightenment Christians."
  4. 4.       ^ Bushman, 337,339, 350-51. On June 17, Sidney Rigdon “preached a vitriolic sermon based on the theme of salt losing its savor and being cast out and trodden underfoot….Soon after the sermon, eighty-three prominent members in Far West, many of them probably Danites by then, signed an ultimatum demanding the departure of the offenders….Fearing for their property and perhaps their lives, the dissenters fled." (355-51) In 1847, David, John, and Jacob Whitmer and Hiram Page were baptized into the newly formed Church of Christ founded by William E. M’Lellin. In 1831, Joseph Smith received a revelation from God that John Whitmer should “write and keep a regular history" of the church (D&C 47). Whitmer did eventually write such a history, but one which concluded with a detailed description of what Whitmer considered the mistreatment that he and his family had received in Caldwell County. See Bruce N. Westerngren, From Historian to Dissident: The Book of John Whitmer (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1995).
  5. 5.       ^ Stephen Burnett letter to Lyman E. Johnson dated April 15, 1838. Typed transcript from Joseph Smith Papers, Letter book, April 20, 1837 – February 9, 1843, microfilm reel 2, pp. 64-66, LDS archives; quoted in “Facts On The Book Of Mormon Witnesses," Institute for Religious Research, retrieved from the Internet on 2/16/08 [1].
  6. 6.       ^ “David Whitmer Interview with Edward Stevenson, 9 February 1888,"in Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2003), 5: 160-61; John C. Whitmer Interview with Andrew Jenson and Edward Stevenson, 11 October 1888," in EMD 5: 260-62. John Whitmer said that his grandmother always referred to the supernatural visitor as “Brother Nephi."
  7. 7.       ^Grant H. Palmer, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 175. Palmer devotes an entire chapter to the magical mindset of the Book of Mormon Witnesses.
  8. 8.       ^ D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1998), rev. ed., 239-40.
  9. 9.       ^ John L. Brooke, The Refiner’s Fire: The Making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644-1844 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 77.
  10. 10.    ^ Palmer, 194-95.
  11. 11.    ^ Martin Harris bankrolled the publication of the Book of Mormon (See Martin Harris), and Oliver Cowdery was at one point considered the “Second Elder in the Church" behind Joseph Smith (See Oliver Cowdery). Of the Eight Witnesses, IRR notes, “All eight had close personal ties to Joseph Smith’s family—four were David Whitmer’s brothers, a fifth was married to a Whitmer sister, and Joseph’s father and two brothers made up the remaining three." Quoted in “Facts On The Book Of Mormon Witnesses," Institute for Religious Research, retrieved from the Internet on 2/16/08 [2]; Palmer, 179.
  12. 12.    ^ Quoted in Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986), second ed., 79.
  13. 13.    ^ Stephen Burnett letter to Lyman E. Johnson dated April 15, 1838. Typed transcript from Joseph Smith Papers, Letter book, April 20, 1837 – February 9, 1843, microfilm reel 2, pp. 64-66, LDS archives – as quoted in Facts On The Book Of Mormon Witnesses, Institute for Religious Research, retrieved from the Internet on 2/16/08 [3]
  14. 14.    ^ Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 2: 255. The foreman in the Palmyra printing office that produced the first Book of Mormon said that Harris “used to practice a good deal of his characteristic jargon and ‘seeing with the spiritual eye,’ and the like." Pomeroy Tucker, Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1867), 71 in EMD, 3: 122. John H. Gilbert, the typesetter for most of the book, said that he had asked Harris, “Martin, did you see those plates with your naked eyes?" According to Gilbert, Harris “looked down for an instant, raised his eyes up, and said, ‘No, I saw them with a spiritual eye." John H. Gilbert, “Memorandum," 8 September 1892, in EMD, 2: 548. Two other Palmyra residents said that Harris told them that he had seen the plates with “the eye of faith" or “spiritual eyes." Martin Harris interviews with John A. Clark, 1827 & 1828 in EMD, 2: 270; Jesse Townsend to Phineas Stiles, 24 December 1833, in EMD, 3: 22. In 1838, Harris is said to have told an Ohio congregation that “he never saw the plates with his natural eyes, only in vision or imagination." Stephen Burnett to Lyman E. Johnson, 15 April 1838 in EMD, 2: 291. A neighbor of Harris in Kirtland, Ohio, said that Harris “never claimed to have seen [the plates] with his natural eyes, only spiritual vision." Reuben P. Harmon statement, c. 1885, in EMD, 2: 385.
  15. 15.    ^Utah Lighthouse Ministries website.: “II Nephi 27:12-13…had predicted, ‘Wherefore, at that day when the book shall be delivered unto the man of whom I have spoken, the book shall be hid from the eyes of the world, that the eyes of none shall behold it save it be that the three witnesses shall behold it by the power of God, besides him to whom the book shall be delivered. And there is none other which shall view it, save it be a few according to the will of God.’ Why does it say ‘none shall behold it save it be the three witnesses’ if there were going to be a ‘few others’ too!"
  16. 16.    ^Institute for Religious Research website Compare History of the Church, 3:232.
  17. 17.    ^ Palmer, 212-13.
  18. 18.    ^ Journal of Discourses 1860, 7:164 – as quoted in Facts On The Book Of Mormon Witnesses, Institute for Religious Research, retrieved from the Internet on 2/16/08 [4]
  19. 19.    ^ See, for example, Dallin H. Oaks, The Witness: Martin Harris, Ensign 29:5; James E. Faust, A Growing Testimony, Ensign 30:11; Henry B. Eyring, An Enduring Testimony of the Witness of the Prophet Joseph, Ensign 33:11:90; Doctrine and Covenants and Church History (Sunday School teacher’s manual), Lesson 4: Remember the New Covenant, Even the Book of Mormon.
  20. 20.    ^ A list of articles is available in the FAIR Topical Guide, under Book of Mormon Witnesses. See also FARMS search results: Three Witnesses Richard Lloyd Anderson, Book of Mormon Witnesses

    21 .  Wikipedia, Book of Mormon witnesses, 20/04/2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_witnesses

    22.  Wikipedia, witnesses, 20/04/2011

    23  The valueless testimony of the Book of Mormon Witnesses   

        http://www.bible.ca/mor-witness-book.htm

  

 

斯密約瑟 有超重大宗教斂財疑義,經不起檢驗。(摩門教初驗不合格系列:耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(俗稱摩門教)創教教主篇)

摩門教初驗不合格:耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(俗稱摩門教創教教主斯密約瑟 有超重大宗教斂財疑義,經不起檢驗。 

 

John  He 編著

          

 先說一些大背景….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。

據詹姆斯戈登貝內特James Gordon Bennett,,在美國紐約州 Palmyra (拋邁拉)地區發生一個大型浸信會和長老會的基督教復興時段(1824年秋季至1825春季),摩門教創教教主斯密約瑟第一次開始“將他們的挖寶關注轉變到一個宗教的陰謀。“   ,貝內特指出,這種轉變是雷格登瑟耐的的主意。就是所謂斯伯丁-雷格登摩門經作者理論。Spalding–Rigdon theory of Book of Mormon authorshipArrington (1970, p. 7 (online ver.)).)。

當摩門教徒初次知曉或討論到有關斯密約瑟,考得里奧利佛,雷格登瑟耐三人如何使用雷格登瑟耐偷來的斯伯丁手稿共謀哄騙圖利時,莫不震驚不已。( 詳見 摩門經的真正作者是誰? —-斯伯丁-雷格登 是 摩門經作者理論。 )對摩門教徒不幸的是,有相當多的證據,表明了這可能輕易發生。然大多數摩門教徒都會有鴕鳥心態,頭藏在沙堆下。

1826年(在斯密約瑟”翻譯”摩門經前)  他因欺詐鄰居的金錢被拖進法庭,(詳見

摩門教初驗不合格:耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(俗稱摩門教)創教教主斯密約瑟的民俗法術職業身份有超重大疑義,經不起檢驗。)他正在找一個騙術,一個受騙者不能起訴你或要求退還他們錢的騙術。

有了雷格登瑟耐和他的表親考得里奧利佛的”共謀大計”  ,斯密約瑟認為該有新的選擇來突破財源困境—–宗教是完美的選擇。(摩門經的真正作者是誰? —-斯伯丁-雷格登 是 摩門經作者理論。)

 

  • 說服馬丁哈里斯為摩門經的出版支付3000美元作為印刷成本。

印刷商Egbert B. Grandin要求3000美元給作為出版摩門經的印刷成本費用。

 原先  馬丁‧哈里斯與斯密約瑟各自籌款一半。斯密約瑟為了支付他1500分擔印刷摩門經美元的費用,斯密約瑟試圖從他的老朋友喬賽亞斯托韋爾Josiah Stowell那裡籌集至少500元, 但沒有成功。(史密斯1829  Smith, Joseph, Jr. (October 22, 1829), Letter to Oliver Cowdery, http://deseretbook.com/personalwritings/9 . )。

哈里斯馬丁認識到,在1831年初當付款到期時,印刷書的分攤費用3000美元會完全落在他的肩膀時,且在他的妻子露西慫恿下,正在考慮違反他必須支付他的份額的合同。 (Early Mormon Documents, 2: 540. Gilbert, the typesetter, disputed that there had been a suspension of publication saying that because Martin Harris “had given security for the full amount agreed upon for printing, before the work was commenced…there was no delay because of financial embarrassment.")

作為回應,斯密約瑟再次從和諧Harmony到之巴爾米拉Palmyra,安撫哈里斯—於 1830年1月16日通過訂立合同稱:“本人同意,哈里斯馬丁應與我和我的朋友享有同等的特權—售賣摩門經(現在由埃格伯特乙格朗丹Egbert B. Grandin印刷的版本) …..“(史密斯1830a Smith, Joseph, Jr. (January 16, 1830), Agreement between Joseph Smith Jr. and Martin Harris, Simon Gratz Collection, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia .

)。斯密約瑟和哈里斯隨後前往格朗丹的辦公室,並說服格朗丹繼續打印(史密斯1853年,第150-151Smith, Lucy Mack (1853), Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations, Liverpool: S.W. Richards, http://relarchive.byu.edu/19th/descriptions/biographical.html . ),時於 1830年1月26日。

1830年3月下旬,摩門經第一預先版已經可用,哈里斯試圖賣售他們,但沒有得到任何買家。哈里斯,因此,開始改調有關承諾支付印刷費用。(傑西 1976年,第5頁Jessee, Dean (1976), “Joseph Knight’s Recollection of Early Mormon History" ([dead link]), BYU Studies 17 (1): 35, https://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/PDFSRC/17.1Jessee.pdf . )。

作為回應,斯密約瑟— 祭出宗教恐嚇式的法寶—口述一個啟示來命令哈里斯,他無法想像的永恆的詛咒刑罰,:“發放你部分的財產,是的,甚至是你一部分的土地…..。支付印刷廠債務。“ (菲爾普斯 1833年,第42頁,十六:36 – 37 Phelps, W.W., ed. (1833), A Book of Commandments, for the Government of the Church of Christ, Zion: William Wines Phelps & Co., http://www.irr.org/mit/BOC/default.html . )。

顯然,斯密約瑟的宗教恐嚇式的法寶奏效。哈里斯重申他承諾支付印刷費, 1830年3月26日格朗丹打印完成。

馬丁哈里斯的原先如意賺錢算盤 

[馬丁‧哈里斯]說: “如果你不要管我,我可以通過它賺錢。” ~ 露西哈里斯(馬丁的妻子)( Mormonism Unveiled: Testimonies of  Lucy Harris (Martin Harris’ wife)  http://carm.org/religious-movements/mormonism/mormonism-unveiled-testimonies-abigail-harris-and-lucy-harris-martin)

馬丁‧哈里斯曾是一位富農,當地(Palmyra, New York)的長老教會牧師稱他為“一個有異象的狂信者,(Walker 1986, pp. 34–35) “不管他去那裡了,他總在他周圍看見異象和超自然的顯現。(John A. Clark letter, August 31, 1840 in EMD, 2: 271)

馬丁‧哈里斯因他的幻覺天性,曾說他用“信仰之眼“或“心靈之眼“看到了斯密約瑟金頁片。(Martin Harris interviews with John A. Clark, 1827 & 1828 in EMD, 2: 270; Jesse Townsend to Phineas Stiles, 24 December 1833, in EMD, 3: 22)

馬丁‧哈里斯對斯密約瑟的奇異事情發生興趣,認為有幸恭逢其盛,打算出資來出版這本斯密約瑟所謂的天書,參與斯密約瑟此一歷史盛會。

馬丁哈里斯原先認為出版摩門經賣售摩門經亦能賺錢原先認為只承擔50%印刷費用沒想到後來賺錢無望又在斯密約瑟的宗教式永恆的詛咒刑罰的恐嚇下,馬丁哈里斯為摩門經的出版,抵押了他的農場,以支付3000美元給印刷商Egbert B. Grandin作為印刷成本。

後來,馬丁‧哈里斯也成為《摩門經》三位見證人之一。

再後來,馬丁失去了他的農場。

 

 

  • 試圖出售摩門經加拿大的版權 

在1829年的冬天,斯密約瑟說,已經收到了啟示,通過他的先見石(惠特默1887年,第31頁Whitmer, David (1887), An Address to All Believers in Christ By A Witness to the Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, Richmond, Missouri: David Whitmer, http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/address1.htm . )派送奧利弗Oliver Cowdery和希蘭頁面Hiram Page一代表團到加拿大出售摩門經的版權。這個使命,後來沒成功。

“斯密約瑟聽到有機會在加拿大出售任何在美國有用的書的版權。約瑟認為,這將是一個很好的機會可得到一筆錢,為的是(扣除費用後)— 獨家造福於斯密家庭和可被約瑟處置。……(他們)作了必要的準備工作,使用一個狡猾的方式,以保持哈里斯馬丁無法分享這筆錢。 “ (函件, Letter, Hiram Page to William McLellin, Fishingriver, Feb. 2, 1848; Community of Christ Archives, spelling and punctuation standardized by Eldon Watson. Page, Hiram (February 2, 1848), “Letter to Brother Wm. [probably William E. McLellin]", in Vogel, Dan, Early Mormon Documents, 5, Salt Lake City: Signature Books, p. 257 . )

 

  • 嘉德蘭安全協會反銀行公司(KSSABC

1837年1月2日嘉德蘭安全協會反銀行公司(KSSABC)經修訂的文章,成立了為股份公司,作為準銀行機構。悉尼里格登Sidney Rigdon擔任 KSSABC的主席和總裁,沃倫帕里什Warren Parrish作為簽署人,秘書和出納員;斯密約瑟是收銀員。

然而,1837年11月,嘉德蘭安全協會反銀行公司失敗,停止營業。在此之後,摩門教領導人斯密約瑟因非法經營銀行被罰款$1,000 ,許多破產的摩門教徒離開了教會,因為他們認為斯密約瑟建立銀行,是為斂富自己和摩門教的領導階層。

耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(俗稱摩門教)創教教主斯密約瑟的1829年 露西哈里斯 vs. 斯密約瑟 訴訟官司案有超重大疑義,經不起檢驗。(摩門教初驗不合格系列)

摩門教初驗不合格:耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(俗稱摩門教創教教主斯密約瑟的1829  露西哈里斯 vs. 斯密約瑟 訴訟官司案有超重大疑義,經不起檢驗。 

John  He 編著

      vs.  

   

1829年  露西哈里斯 vs. 斯密約瑟 訴訟官司案(Lucy Harris vs. Joseph Smith: The 1829 Proceedings)

馬丁的妻子露西,她相信斯密約瑟斯的主要目標是詐騙她的丈夫所有的財產,而且她不認為斯密約瑟斯曾擁有他說了這麼多的黃金葉片,她收集證人和在紐約里昂Lyons, New York對斯密約瑟斯提出刑事指控,試圖證明斯密約瑟斯是假裝有黃金葉片,以騙取她的丈夫。審判在斯密約瑟斯缺席下進行,但在法官聽取哈里斯馬丁證詞後被駁回。(史密斯1853年,第132-135 Smith, Lucy Mack (1853), Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations, Liverpool: S.W. Richards, http://relarchive.byu.edu/19th/descriptions/biographical.html .)。

她解釋當天訴訟如下:(Orson Pratt , published the manuscript in London in 1853, and entitled it, “Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet and His Progenitors for Many Generations."  )
正式宣誓後,第一個目擊者作證,斯密約瑟告訴他,他的箱子中,只有沙,斯密約瑟說,那是黃金來欺騙人們。

第二個證人發誓,這斯密約瑟斯曾告訴他,這只不過是一盒鉛,他決心以他認為合適的方式使用它。

 
第三個證人宣稱,他曾經問斯密約瑟斯在那個盒子裡是什麼,斯密約瑟斯告訴他,在箱子裡什麼什麼都沒有,告訴我們說,他把全部人都耍弄了,他想要的是馬丁哈里斯的錢,和他(證人)是知道一個事實—斯密約瑟斯,經由他的勸說,他已經得手有兩三百元。
接下來是哈里斯夫人的證詞,其中她說,她相信斯密約瑟斯的主要目標是詐騙她的丈夫所有的財產,而且她不認為斯密約瑟斯曾擁有他說了這麼多的黃金葉片。

註:

當年(1828年四月)哈里斯馬丁(所謂摩門經三位見證人之一)和他的太太Lucy Harris一起去Harmony PA看斯密約瑟。後來Lucy Harris離開他的丈夫回到Palmyra PA,因為Lucy Harris深信斯密約瑟是一個沒有真正擁有金葉片的騙子。

斯密約瑟翻譯摩門經時也並沒有真正擁有金葉片。

正如大衛惠特茂所言:「我及我父親的家人,約瑟的妻子,考德里奧利佛,和哈里斯馬丁,在翻譯時均在場….他[約瑟弟兄]翻譯時沒有用到金葉片。」

另,斯密約瑟曾讓哈里斯把” 從金板上抄錄下來的文字和譯文”拿去給專家來鑒定其真假?

為什麼?

答案:

引用專家(查爾斯安東教授)的話: 『….想詐騙這個農人(馬丁‧哈里斯)金錢的圈套….』。後來,於1829 Aug. 5,馬丁‧哈里斯為摩門經的出版,抵押了他的農場,以支付3000美元給印刷商Egbert B. Grandin作為印刷成本。

馬丁‧哈里斯曾是一位富農,當地(Palmyra, New York)的長老教會牧師稱他為“一個有異象的狂信者,(Walker 1986, pp. 34–35) “不管他去那裡了,他總在他周圍看見異象和超自然的顯現。(John A. Clark letter, August 31, 1840 in EMD, 2: 271)

馬丁‧哈里斯對斯密約瑟的奇異事情發生興趣,認為有幸恭逢其盛,打算出資來出版這本斯密約瑟所謂的天書,參與斯密約瑟此一歷史盛會。但他想先確定它是否真實和翻譯得是否正確,因此哈裏斯帶著斯密約瑟從金板上抄錄下來的文字和譯文,去請哥倫以亞大學的查爾斯安東教授加以鑒定。

試想:

如果斯密約瑟真的從天使摩羅乃拿到《摩門經》的「原始」頁片「摩門經金片」和烏陵和土明。

如果斯密約瑟是得到原稿後在上帝的幫助下把其上的文字-所謂改良埃及文翻譯成英文。

那天使摩羅乃或上帝豈會容許斯密約瑟把上帝的作品拿去給凡人來鑒定其真假 ?顯然斯密約瑟讓馬丁‧哈里斯把”上帝的作品”拿去給凡人來鑒定其真假,其目的只有一個—-就是要取信於馬丁‧哈里斯,好讓馬丁‧哈里斯拿出鉅款—-為摩門經的出版,以支付印刷商印刷成本。

後來,馬丁‧哈里斯因他的幻覺天性,曾說他用“信仰之眼“或“心靈之眼“看到了斯密約瑟金頁片。(Martin Harris interviews with John A. Clark, 1827 & 1828 in EMD, 2: 270; Jesse Townsend to Phineas Stiles, 24 December 1833, in EMD, 3: 22) 哈里斯為摩門經的出版,抵押了他的農場3000美元以支付印刷商印刷成本。

後來,馬丁‧哈里斯也成為《摩門經》三位見證人之一。

再後來,馬丁失去了他的農場。

耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(俗稱摩門教)創教教主斯密約瑟的1826年「水晶球觀看人」(glass-looker) 官司案有超重大疑義,經不起檢驗。(摩門教初驗不合格系列)

摩門教初驗不合格:耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(俗稱摩門教創教教主斯密約瑟的1826年「水晶球觀看人」(glass-looker) 官司案有超重大疑義,經不起檢驗。

John  He 編著

       

1826年斯密約瑟「水晶球觀看人」(glass-looker) 官司(詳見上述民俗法術).

挖金者尋寶人斯密約瑟終於,直接或間接,因為與雇主約西亞史達爾(Josiah Stowel)之間的糾紛導至他官司纏身。

 

Section marked with red arrow reads:

有紅色箭頭標示的節段這如此說:

same vs
Joseph Smith         Misdemeanor   (
行為不檢)          
the Glass looker
March 20 1826      To my fees in examination
                               of the above cause                2.68

http://www.realmormonhistory.com/1826.htm

斯密約瑟的挖金者尋寶人職業, 並沒有讓他有穩定的收入或意外發財, 日後他在被訪問「斯密約瑟不是一個挖金者嗎?」這個問題時,自己承認:「是的,但它對我從未是一個獲利良多的職業,這工作一個月不過能掙14元。」(也見《教會歷史》卷三第二十九頁:』Was not Joseph Smith a money digger?』 Yes, but it was never a very profitable job for him, as he only got fourteen dollars a month for it.)

沒有讓他有穩定的收入或意外發財也罷,挖金者尋寶人職業卻給他帶來上法庭的困窘。

據當時的「無業遊民法」定義,凡是號稱能夠看手相、預卜未來和預測遺失物品在哪裡可找到的人是會可能被判妨害社會致序者(disorderly person)(一項輕罪)。挖金者尋寶人斯密約瑟終於,直接或間接,因為與雇主約西亞史達爾(Josiah Stowel)之間的糾紛導至他官司纏身。

1826年3月20日斯密約瑟成為羈押犯被逮捕到法庭。

據Peter G. Bridgeman書寫的訴狀,在Bainbridge的「水晶球觀看人」(glass-looker)斯密約瑟被指控是一個妨害治安者和騙子(a disorderly person and an impostor),逮捕狀因此被發出。”“羈押犯斯密約瑟於1826年3月20日被帶到法庭上來。 (此項法院判決原件記錄於1971年,在紐約州位在Norwich的郡立監獄的地下室被找到;判決記錄圖形檔如圖。
1873年,Frazer’s Magazine 將此判決刊登出來,標題為』STATE OF NEW YORK v. JOSEPH SMITH』:“ )

在庭上,斯密約瑟的僱主約西亞史達爾(Josiah Stowel)宣誓:說那個羈押犯(prisoner)已在他家大約有五個月了;兼職受僱在他家農場工作,他佯裝(pretend)有能力透過觀看一個特定的石頭找出埋藏在地裡的藏寶,這羈押犯已找過他幾次,一次告訴他有錢埋在賓州Bend Mountain ,一次是有黃金在Monument Hill, 另一次是鹽礦;他相當相信這羈押犯擁有透過那顆石頭找到藏寶的能力, …

斯密約瑟即—-“羈押犯在審問時回答:他來自拋邁拉(Palmyra),受僱於Bainbridge的約西亞史達爾(Josiah Stowel)….。他有一塊特定石頭,他偶爾用觀看這塊石頭的方式,來定位隱藏的寶藏埋在地下何處;他聲稱藉此可以知道金礦就在其地面下方某處。他已從事此偶爾用觀看這塊石頭尋寶的嗜好3年。但他之後放棄尋寶因它傷害他的健康,特別是使他的眼睛酸乏;他沒有誘使別人去挖寶,他寧願不跟挖寶行業有任何牽扯。”(Frazer’s Magazine, February, 1873, pp. 229-30) (亦見護教學者論文The 1826 Trial of Joseph Smith, Jr. By Brandon U. Hansen (Brandon), published on 11 June 2006; )

最後,Albert Neely法官並未判決斯密約瑟妨害社會致序(disorderly person) 的指控(開庭成本:2.68美元),但是判決一個更輕的罪,行為不檢(Misdemeanor),當庭釋放。(見護教學者論文http://www.lightplanet.com/response/1826Trial/1826Trial_Hill.html。)

後來,斯密約瑟也留下對此事件的說法:
「…一八二五年十月,我受雇於一位住在紐約州齊南哥郡,名為約西亞史達爾的老紳士。他聽說西班牙人曾在賓夕法尼亞州蘇克含納郡開銀礦的事;而且,他在雇用我之前就曾去挖過,以便找到那礦。我搬去跟他住之後,他就代著我和其他的人手去挖那銀礦,我在那裡繼續工作了一個月,我們的工作沒有成功,最後我勸服了這位老先生停止挖掘。流傳甚廣的有關我是挖金者的傳說,即由此而起。」 (教會歷史卷一第56節)

知名的摩門教辯護休尼布利Hugh Nibley出版了一本書其中有一聲明:“…如果這是真實的法庭記錄,這將是對斯密約瑟斯最確鑿的存在證據。(神話製造者1961年,第142The Myth Makers, 1961, page 142)在同一頁,我們讀到這樣的法庭記錄將是對斯密約瑟最嚴重的打擊。 因為他能看到這個問題的嚴重影響,尼布利博士試圖在每一個可能的方式摧毀法院記錄是一個真實的文件的想法,。

耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(俗稱摩門教)創教教主斯密約瑟的民俗法術職業身份有超重大疑義,經不起檢驗。 (摩門教初驗不合格系列)

摩門教初驗不合格:耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(俗稱摩門教創教教主斯密約瑟的民俗法術職業身份有超重大疑義,經不起檢驗。 

 

John  He 編著

        

 

 

 

Talisman larger than actual size
TALISMAN FRONT (enlarged)

事實上,斯密約瑟擁有木星的護身符一事說他的醉心於神秘不只是一個幼稚的時尚。當他去世時,斯密約瑟還帶著他的護身符~ Charles Bidamon—Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101: Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints (Baker Books, 2000), 255.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Talisman larger than actual size
TALISMAN BACK (enlarged)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

斯密約瑟變戲法魔術師~批評者

 

斯密約瑟是使用「先見寶石」的挖金者尋寶人

先來介紹甚麼是「先見寶石」。

一些早期的十九世紀的美國人會使用的,「先見寶石」試圖獲得神的啟示或尋找寶藏。19 20年代初開始,斯密約瑟也曾受雇作為“先見“的尋寶人(幾乎都不成功的),嘗試查找遺失物品和尋找在地下的貴重金屬寶藏。(Martin Harris did say that Smith once found a pin in a pile of shavings with the aid of a stone. Harris interview with Joel Tiffany, 1859, in EMD, 2: 303.)

在早期的後期聖徒的歷史,「先見寶石」seer stones是指一種顆石頭,主要(但不限於),由斯密約瑟用以接受來自上帝啟示的石頭。在他創立教會之前,斯密約瑟至少擁有兩個先見石頭,他曾是一個受雇的尋寶人。( For a survey of Smith’s use of seer stones by a respected scholar and LDS patriarch, see Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 45-52. 『Joseph had discovered two stones, one in 1822, while digging a well with Willard Chase a half mile from the Smith farm. The source of the other stone is uncertain.』 (48) Smith may have also acquired another, a green stone, while he was living in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1998), 43-44.)

斯密約瑟發現了兩塊石頭,一個在1822年,是與 Willard蔡斯在離斯密農場半英里之處幫鄰居挖井時發現的。另一個石頭的來源則是不確知的。“(Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005,p48)

斯密約瑟偏愛的「先見寶石」,是巧克力色(深色, 非全黑色)的顏色,大小如一個雞蛋,是與 Willard蔡斯在幫鄰居挖井時發現的那一顆。( Roberts 1930, p. 129.; Emma Smith Bidamon to Mrs. Charles Pilgrim, Nauvoo,Illinois, March 27, 1871.  Original letter in the library of the Reorganized LDSChurch)

斯密約瑟的程序是將石頭在白色高帽 (大禮帽. stove pipe hat),再把他的臉覆在帽子上以阻擋光線,然後“看“在石頭反射出的必要的資料。( Harris 1859, p. 164; Hale 1834, p. 265; Clark 1842, p. 225; Mather 1880,)

挖金者尋寶人斯密約瑟終於,直接或間接,因為與雇主約西亞史達爾(Josiah Stowel)之間的糾紛導至他官司纏身。

 

 

Section marked with red arrow reads:

有紅色箭頭標示的節段這如此說:

same vs
Joseph Smith         Misdemeanor   (
行為不檢)          
the Glass looker
March 20 1826      To my fees in examination
                               of the above cause                2.68

http://www.realmormonhistory.com/1826.htm

斯密約瑟的挖金者尋寶人職業, 並沒有讓他有穩定的收入或意外發財, 日後他在被訪問「斯密約瑟不是一個挖金者嗎?」這個問題時,自己承認:「是的,但它對我從未是一個獲利良多的職業,這工作一個月不過能掙14元。」(也見《教會歷史》卷三第二十九頁:』Was not Joseph Smith a money digger?』 Yes, but it was never a very profitable job for him, as he only got fourteen dollars a month for it.)

沒有讓他有穩定的收入或意外發財也罷,挖金者尋寶人職業卻給他帶來上法庭的困窘。

據當時的「無業遊民法」定義,凡是號稱能夠看手相、預卜未來和預測遺失物品在哪裡可找到的人是會可能被判妨害社會致序者(disorderly person)(一項輕罪)。挖金者尋寶人斯密約瑟終於,直接或間接,因為與雇主約西亞史達爾(Josiah Stowel)之間的糾紛導至他官司纏身。

1826年3月20日斯密約瑟成為羈押犯被逮捕到法庭。

據Peter G. Bridgeman書寫的訴狀,在Bainbridge的「水晶球觀看人」(glass-looker)斯密約瑟被指控是一個妨害治安者和騙子(a disorderly person and an impostor),逮捕狀因此被發出。”“羈押犯斯密約瑟於1826年3月20日被帶到法庭上來。 (此項法院判決原件記錄於1971年,在紐約州位在Norwich的郡立監獄的地下室被找到;判決記錄圖形檔如圖。
1873年,Frazer’s Magazine 將此判決刊登出來,標題為』STATE OF NEW YORK v. JOSEPH SMITH』:“ )

在庭上,斯密約瑟的僱主約西亞史達爾(Josiah Stowel)宣誓:說那個羈押犯(prisoner)已在他家大約有五個月了;兼職受僱在他家農場工作,他佯裝(pretend)有能力透過觀看一個特定的石頭找出埋藏在地裡的藏寶,這羈押犯已找過他幾次,一次告訴他有錢埋在賓州Bend Mountain ,一次是有黃金在Monument Hill, 另一次是鹽礦;他相當相信這羈押犯擁有透過那顆石頭找到藏寶的能力, …

斯密約瑟即—-“羈押犯在審問時回答:他來自拋邁拉(Palmyra),受僱於Bainbridge的約西亞史達爾(Josiah Stowel)….。他有一塊特定石頭,他偶爾用觀看這塊石頭的方式,來定位隱藏的寶藏埋在地下何處;他聲稱藉此可以知道金礦就在其地面下方某處。他已從事此偶爾用觀看這塊石頭尋寶的嗜好3年。但他之後放棄尋寶因它傷害他的健康,特別是使他的眼睛酸乏;他沒有誘使別人去挖寶,他寧願不跟挖寶行業有任何牽扯。”(Frazer’s Magazine, February, 1873, pp. 229-30) (亦見護教學者論文The 1826 Trial of Joseph Smith, Jr. By Brandon U. Hansen (Brandon), published on 11 June 2006; )

最後,Albert Neely法官並未判決斯密約瑟妨害社會致序(disorderly person) 的指控(開庭成本:2.68美元),但是判決一個更輕的罪,行為不檢(Misdemeanor),當庭釋放。(見護教學者論文http://www.lightplanet.com/response/1826Trial/1826Trial_Hill.html。)

後來,斯密約瑟也留下對此事件的說法:
「…一八二五年十月,我受雇於一位住在紐約州齊南哥郡,名為約西亞史達爾的老紳士。他聽說西班牙人曾在賓夕法尼亞州蘇克含納郡開銀礦的事;而且,他在雇用我之前就曾去挖過,以便找到那礦。我搬去跟他住之後,他就代著我和其他的人手去挖那銀礦,我在那裡繼續工作了一個月,我們的工作沒有成功,最後我勸服了這位老先生停止挖掘。流傳甚廣的有關我是挖金者的傳說,即由此而起。」 (教會歷史卷一第56節)

以上可知:斯密約瑟是使用「先見寶石」的挖金者尋寶人。