Jersey Girl wrote:I'd also like to know why some folks think it impossible for Rigdon to have taken part in bringing forth the Book of Mormon. Wasn't he a participant in the bringing forth of the Book of Moses?
Jersey Girl
in my opinion the evidence that Rigdon and Smith had amy contact before Parly Pratt introduced his former pastor to the Book of Mormon is scant or non existent.
I think the poster marg referenced some essay by a dude named Criag Riddle or Criddle. Does anyone have this essay linked? I would like to read it. I think marg linked a while back but I do not recall what thread that was on. I am reading the Van Wagnor Bio of Rigdon now and would like to see how this essay compares.
Jason Bourne wrote: Von Wagner notes in his Rigdon BIO that Sidney did here of the Book of Mormon through various news reports before his conversion, but that seems rather limited. Interestingly Van Wagner does not make the Spalding/Rigdon connection at all and even dismissed it. He has a chapter on this in the book.
As for Rigdon's influence Van Wagner thinks that Sidney had a major influence on Joseph and the Church doctrine from the law of consecration, the New Jerusalem, High Priests and two priesthoods, Theology at least to 1835 and the Lectures on Faith and so on. He seemed to fall into disfavor in the late 1830's and early 1840's.
Hi Jason,
Here is that Part of Richard S. Van Wagoner's Great Book about Sidney Rigdon:
[quote]During the spring of 1833 or 1834, while visiting the home of Samuel Baker near Portage, Ohio, Rigdon stated in the presence of a large gathering that he was aware some in the neighborhood had accused him of being the instigator of the Book of Mormon and said:
I testify in the presence of this congregation, and before God and all the Holy Angels up yonder, (pointing towards heaven), before whom I expect to give account at the judgment day, that I never saw a sentence of the Book of Mormon, I never penned a sentence of the Book of Mormon, I never knew that there was such a book in existence as the Book of Mormon, until it was presented to me by Parley P. Pratt, in the form that it now is.
Such was Rigdon’s stance even on his deathbed. He confirmed that position repeatedly, as did his wife and at least three of his children, two of whom were non-believers in Mormonism. His oldest child, Athalia R. Robinson, in a notarized statement of 10 October 1900, said that the missionaries presented the book to her father in the presence of “My mother and myself & This was the first time father ever saw the Book of Mormon.â€
I haven't had the time to put together the response I want to yet, but quickly want to add that Van Wagoner, in my opinion, totally missed the boat with the possible Rigdon connection. I think he just didn't believe in it, so didn't "notice" certain things.
There is no doubt that Rigdon was capable of lying, the question is what were his motives. I think he was probably genuinely religiously motivated, although there may be evidence that he was interested in making money from a land deal with Smith (I haven’t followed up on that lead). But anyway, here is the evidence from Van Wagoner that I found pretty compelling, although I don’t remember Van Wagoner noting its significance.
On page 133, Van Wagoner quotes Rigdon:
“I testify in the presence of this congregation, and before God and all the Holy Angles up yonder, (pointing towards heaven), before whom I expect to give account at the judgment day, that I never saw a sentence of the Book of Mormon. I never penned a sentence of the Book of Mormon. I never knew that there was such a book in existence as the Book of Mormon, until it was presented to me by Parley P. Pratt, in the form that it now is.”
Van Wagoner states that this was his stance until his deathbed, repeated by his children as well.
However, earlier in his book, Van Wagoner said, on pages 55, 56, and 61, that several witnesses stated that the publication of the “Golden Bible” was talked about quite a bit in the news, and that “there can be little doubt that Rigdon, an enthusiastic reader of newspapers, was aware of the book before it was placed in his hands.” Both Eliza Snow and Orson Hyde were members of Rigdon’s congregation, and stated that they had been aware of the oncoming “Golden Bible” and its possible religious significance in “breaking up all our religion, and change its whole features and bearing” before 1830. Rigdon’s brother in law stated in 1841 that he knew that Rigdon told him “there was a book coming out (the manuscript of which had been found engraved on gold plates) as much as two years before the Mormon book made its appearance in this county or had been heard of by me.”
Anyway, there are more statements on pages 55, 56, and 61 that demonstrate it is highly likely Rigdon knew about the Book of Mormon, and its possible impact, long before Parley P. Pratt placed it in his hands.
I think this is significant for two reasons:
1) Rigdon lied about when he first saw the Book of Mormon. There is a reason he lied. What would it matter if he had known about the book from newspaper accounts like so many others? It seems an odd thing to lie about.
2) Contemporary witnesses immediately suspected Rigdon was involved in the creation of the Book of Mormon. I think this is due to the similarity between the preaching in the Book of Mormon and what Rigdon had already been preaching – some of which is quite different than what smith would later embrace as theology.
Regarding Rigdon's instability: he had some sort of mental disorder, there can be no doubt. It sounds like bipolar, but could have been the result of an earlier head injury. By the end of his life, he was pretty nuts. (I'll try to come back with examples later today)
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Why should we believe anything Sidney Rigdon said? From reading Uncle Dale's threads, I've come to think he was nuts and a liar.
He certainly was unstable and Van Wagner theorizes he was bipolar.
One question. If Rigdon was the Book of Mormon author, why did he need Joseph? Why not just declare that the angel came to him, and gave him the plates. Involving Joseph, Oliver, etc. seems to really create a problem for him.
He certainly was unstable and Van Wagner theorizes he was bipolar.
One question. If Rigdon was the Book of Mormon author, why did he need Joseph? Why not just declare that the angel came to him, and gave him the plates. Involving Joseph, Oliver, etc. seems to really create a problem for him.
Rigdon had already tried to become a "top dog" in the Campbellite movement. He just couldn't cut it. Whether it was his personality, or instability - he just couldn't do it. I think he realized his own shortcomings and wanted a charismatic "newcomer" to the scene. In addition, the Book of Mormon would have sounded too convenient by half coming from Rigdon. Its theology largely reflected his own ideas - ideas for which he was already known. So suddenly translating an ancient document that - surprise surprise! - had God inspiring ancient prophets to teach the same things Rigdon had been teaching - would have raised suspicions.
Suspicions were raised as it was. Imagine if he were the "translator".
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.