Sydney Rigdon

[inquiringmind]

I was just reading about the testimonies of Sydney Rigdon and his wife here.

Shortly after I had arrived home, I went to my father's room; he was there and alone, and now was the time for me to commence my inquiries in regard to the origin of the Book of Mormon, and as to the truth of the Mormon religion. I told him what I had seen at Salt Lake City, and I said to him that what I had seen at Salt Lake had not impressed me very favorably toward the Mormon church, and as to the origin of the Book of Mormon I had some doubts. You have been charged with writing that book and giving it to Joseph Smith to introduce to the world. You have always told me one story; that you never saw the book until it was presented to you by Parley P. Pratt and Oliver Cowdery; and all you ever knew of the origin of that book was what they told you and what Joseph Smith and the witnesses who claimed to have seen the plates had told you. Is this true? If so, all right; if it is not, you owe it to me and to your family to tell it. You are an old man and you will soon pass away, and I wish to know if Joseph Smith, in your intimacy with him for fourteen years, has not said something to you that led you to believe he obtained that book in some other way than what he had told you. Give me all you know about it, that I may know the truth. My father, after I had finished saying what I have repeated above, looked at me a moment, raised his hand above his head and slowly said, with tears glistening in his eyes: "My son, I can swear before high heaven that what I have told you about the origin of that book is true. Your mother and sister, Mrs. Athalia Robinson, were present when that book was handed to me in Mentor, Ohio, and all I ever knew about the origin of that book was what Parley P. Pratt, Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith and the witnesses who claimed they saw the plates have told me, and in all of my intimacy with Joseph Smith he never told me but one story, and that was that he found it engraved upon gold plates in a hill near Palmyra, New York, and that an angel had appeared to him and directed him where to find it; and I have never, to you or to any one else, told but the one story, and that I now repeat to you." I believed him, and now believe he told me the truth. He also said to me after that that Mormonism was true; that Joseph Smith was a Prophet, and this world would find it out some day. -- After my father's death, my mother, who survived him several years was in the enjoyment of good health up to the time of her last sickness, she being eighty-six years old. A short time before her death I had a conversation with her about the origin of the Book of Mormon and wanted to know what she remembered about its being presented to my father. She said to me in that conversation that what my father had told me about the book being presented to him was true, for she was present at the time and knew that was the first time he ever saw it, and that the stories told about my father writing the Book of Mormon were not true. This she said to me in her old age and when the shadows of the grave were gathering around her; and I believed her.'"

http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/2000s/2000JLS1.htm

I'm sure they were both baptized, and they seem to have retained a testimony to the BOM all their lives, but didn't they die outside the Church?

If the Church is true, where would that put them as far as God is concerned?

Did they "endure to the end"?

Edited April 25, 2013 by inquiringmind

[Avatar4321]

Your link isnt working for me.

Ill let God determine where they are at.

[inquiringmind]

Your link isnt working for me.

Ill let God determine where they are at.

The link should work now.

My question is (given Gospel Principles, and what's revealed in latter day Revelation), what would God do with Sydney and his wife?

Would He consider them overcomers because they kept their testimonies, or apostates (or even sop's) because they died outside the Utah Church?

Edited April 25, 2013 by inquiringmind

[CASteinman]

If the Church is true, where would that put them as far as God is concerned?

Did they "endure to the end"?

We do not have the authority or ability to judge people's eternal destiny's That would put us on the Judgement Throne of Christ -- where we do not belong.

However, it should be noted that Sidney Rigdon was severely injured the night Joseph Smith was tarred. He was dragged with his head bouncing over the frozen ground until he was unconscious -- and it took him longer to recover than it took Joseph Smith. After that incident, he was never the same and it was not long that Joseph Smith wanted him released from the First Presidency.

The Lord will be wise and just and merciful.

[bjw]

I often wonder about these things myself. There were many that did not go with the Saints to Utah, such as Rigdon, Emma Smith, etc. I often wonder if they are still considered part of the Restoration even though they didn't go to Utah. Since, today members are not expected to go to Utah when they convert. The doctrine of the gathering has been rescinded in our time. So, can we just declare that these people disobeyed one doctrine (the gathering) but obeyed the rest of the Gospel?

[inquiringmind]

We do not have the authority or ability to judge people's eternal destiny's That would put us on the Judgement Throne of Christ -- where we do not belong...

So repentance, baptism, and bearing a testimony to Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon all your life (even to your last breath) doesn't necessarily guarantee anything?

Edited April 25, 2013 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

I often wonder about these things myself. There were many that did not go with the Saints to Utah, such as Rigdon, Emma Smith, etc. I often wonder if they are still considered part of the Restoration even though they didn't go to Utah. Since, today members are not expected to go to Utah when they convert. The doctrine of the gathering has been rescinded in our time. So, can we just declare that these people disobeyed one doctrine (the gathering) but obeyed the rest of the Gospel?

Do we know how God viewed Sydney, his wife, Emma, Lucy Mack Smith, and the others?

Were they Mormons who endured to the end in His eyes, or are they all lost?

[Storm Rider]

To me enduring to the end has more to do with living a life in relationship with Jesus Christ than anything else. A long time ago I concluded that I could not understand a whole lot about our Father and his plan. I believe that those who follow Jesus do their best and sometimes our best does not appear as very much in the eyes of others. However, "others" have a very difficult time understanding the circumstances and challenges that each individual has gone through. As for me, I would be very happy to meet Brother Rigdon again and thank him for all he did to aid in the restoration of the gospel. As for his judgment I will leave that firmly in the hands of our Savior and pray for the same mercy that I seek.

[Tacenda]

I read an autobiography about Sidney Ridgon, can't remember the title now. But one part stands out and it was the polygamy thing. I believe Joseph Smith asked Nancy, Sidney's daughter, to become his wife. This is probably where enduring to the end became so difficult. He more than likely felt Joseph had gone astray and didnt think the church could progress in that situation. He also suffered with some depression or mental illness, maybe stemming from the head injury. I remember visiting some history sites near Palmyra and one room was devoted to showing the beginnings of Mormonism chronologically with photos and art. I kept looking for something on SR. It was as if he never existed. I asked the missionary sister and she didn't know why or really much about him. Interesting since he was the second in line to become a prophet.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Tacenda

[Doctrine 612]

This quote seem like a anti quote, I may be wrong, but I don't think SR ever went to Utah, also SR was never an apostle so could not be the next leader of the church, even before the policy change of March 31, 1900 on who becomes the next president of the church.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Doctrine 612

[Glenn101]

This quote seem like a anti quote, I may be wrong, but I don't think SR ever went to Utah, also SR was never an apostle so could not be the next leader of the church, even before the policy change on who becomes the next president of the church.

It was not Sydney that went to Utah but his son, John Wickliffe Rigdon. Sydney could indeed have been chosen as the next president by the voice of the people, but Brighma was instead. At the time, there was no precedent or requirement that the president of the chuch be a sitting apostle.

Glenn

Edited April 25, 2013 by Glenn101

[Doctrine 612]

It was not Sydney that went to Utah but his son, John Wickliffe Rigdon. Sydney could indeed have been chosen as the next president by the voice of the people, but Brighma was instead. At the time, there was no precedent or requirement that the president of the chuch be a sitting apostle.

Glenn

I did not catch that I thought it was SR who was talking, also before 1900 the rule was SR apostle then after 1900 the rule is SR apostle belonging to the quorum of the 12. Brigham youngs stance was that of apostle.

Also I did some research of Sidney and how he ran his church and his doctrines, and I must say he would have been a great leader, since we do now what he had his church do then, like no polygamy and all worthy men can hold the priesthood.

[Avatar4321]

I often wonder about these things myself. There were many that did not go with the Saints to Utah, such as Rigdon, Emma Smith, etc. I often wonder if they are still considered part of the Restoration even though they didn't go to Utah. Since, today members are not expected to go to Utah when they convert. The doctrine of the gathering has been rescinded in our time. So, can we just declare that these people disobeyed one doctrine (the gathering) but obeyed the rest of the Gospel?

Take David Whitmer, for example. I believe him when he says the Spirit told him to separate with the saints at the time. I have no doubt had he gone back to the Saints he would have been welcomed with open arms. He stayed faithful to his testimony of the Book of Mormon to his dying breath. I think the Lord had a purpose for him being away from the Church and yet remaining faithful to what he was called to do as a witness of the Book of Mormon. I have no doubt that he will recieve the blessings the Lord has for Him

The doctrine of Gathering hasnt been rescinded. We've just been gathering in another form for the time being until the Lord tells us what the next step is. In fact, i believe the technology the Lord has provided for us in the last days to assist in our communication is part of the gathering. You and I can be on completely opposite sides of the planet and because of the blessings of the Lord, we can fellowship with one another. If the Lord has another phase for gathering in the latter-days, which im inclined to think He does, i have no doubt that we will see it soon enough. Nothing that Ive seen of the doctrine has rescinded. We are just gathering at multiple locations now.

[Avatar4321]

I read an autobiography about Sidney Ridgon, can't remember the title now. But one part stands out and it was the polygamy thing. I believe Joseph Smith asked Nancy, Sidney's daughter, to become his wife. This is probably where enduring to the end became so difficult. He more than likely felt Joseph had gone astray and didnt think the church could progress in that situation. He also suffered with some depression or mental illness, maybe stemming from the head injury. I remember visiting some history sites near Palmyra and one room was devoted to showing the beginnings of Mormonism chronologically with photos and art. I kept looking for something on SR. It was as if he never existed. I asked the missionary sister and she didn't know why or really much about him. Interesting since he was the second in line to become a prophet.

Forgive my ignorance, but when was he ever second in line to be prophet? He was never the Second Elder of the Church. Nor was he ever the leader of the Twelve. Being a member of the First Presidency doesnt give him any standing to become the President if the current President dies.

[Avatar4321]

It was not Sydney that went to Utah but his son, John Wickliffe Rigdon. Sydney could indeed have been chosen as the next president by the voice of the people, but Brighma was instead. At the time, there was no precedent or requirement that the president of the chuch be a sitting apostle.

Glenn

I disagree. He could no more have been the next President than I could have if I lived then. The Lord gave power to the Twelve to be equal in authority to the First Presidency. At the First Presidency disolved at the death of Joseph, the Twelve were authorized body to govern the Church with Brigham as President of the Twelve. Sydney was never given any keys to do so.

The body of the Church couldnt determine that Sydney would be their leader without turning to apostasy because that's not what the Lord's plan was. It's the Lord who determines who is the Presiding High Priest of the Church.

[CASteinman]

I disagree. He could no more have been the next President than I could have if I lived then. The Lord gave power to the Twelve to be equal in authority to the First Presidency. At the First Presidency disolved at the death of Joseph, the Twelve were authorized body to govern the Church with Brigham as President of the Twelve. Sydney was never given any keys to do so.

The body of the Church couldnt determine that Sydney would be their leader without turning to apostasy because that's not what the Lord's plan was. It's the Lord who determines who is the Presiding High Priest of the Church.

I have looked at this a bit and while I think you are right that the First Presidency no longer had the authority and was dissolved, I am not sure this was clear to the Church at the time. I think it took a while to figure it out. However, despite that, the voice of the people rejected Rigdon so, both in official scriptural basis and in terms of common consent, the 12 had the reins.

Edited April 25, 2013 by CASteinman

[CV75]

I'm sure they were both baptized, and they seem to have retained a testimony to the BOM all their lives, but didn't they die outside the Church?

For the purposes of discussion, let's say they died outside the Church. I think this leads to a more beneficial question that one can ask for and of himself: "What would I have done with what I suppose they had had, had I had it for myself?"

If the Church is true, where would that put them as far as God is concerned?

I think this leads to more beneficial questions that one can ask for and of himself: "Is the Church true?" "Where am I as far as God is concerned?"

Did they "endure to the end"?

I think this leads to a more beneficial question that one can ask for and of himself: "Am I enduring to the end?"

[ERayR]

I was just reading about the testimonies of Sydney Rigdon and his wife here.

http://www.olivercow...0s/2000JLS1.htm

I'm sure they were both baptized, and they seem to have retained a testimony to the BOM all their lives, but didn't they die outside the Church?

If the Church is true, where would that put them as far as God is concerned?

Did they "endure to the end"?

In need of Christs atonement like the rest of us.

[ERayR]

So repentance, baptism, and bearing a testimony to Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon all your life (even to your last breath) doesn't necessarily guarantee anything?

Not what he said. Read it again for comprehension.

[Kenngo1969]

I commend Richard Lloyd Anderson's superb book, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses to all participants on this thread.

For what it's worth,

-Ken

[why me]

The link should work now.

My question is (given Gospel Principles, and what's revealed in latter day Revelation), what would God do with Sydney and his wife?

Would He consider them overcomers because they kept their testimonies, or apostates (or even sop's) because they died outside the Utah Church?

What is amazing about sidney is that he kept to his testimony. This was very important not just for him but also for his family. It meant that when facing his maker, he could not deny his testimony in the book of mormon. This would mean that he did endure to the end. Now what happens along the way can be considered a human experience.

[why me]

I often wonder about these things myself. There were many that did not go with the Saints to Utah, such as Rigdon, Emma Smith, etc. I often wonder if they are still considered part of the Restoration even though they didn't go to Utah. Since, today members are not expected to go to Utah when they convert. The doctrine of the gathering has been rescinded in our time. So, can we just declare that these people disobeyed one doctrine (the gathering) but obeyed the rest of the Gospel?

It would be interesting just what Emma and Sidney would have been if they did go to Utah. But we can only guess about this. I think that they would have accomplished wonderful things. Both Emma and Sidney are mentioned in the D&C and this would make them very much apart of the restoration.

Both Emma and Sidney went astray and it is here that they made a mistake. It does not matter if they went to Utah or not. It is going astray where the mistake was made.

[why me]

I read an autobiography about Sidney Ridgon, can't remember the title now. But one part stands out and it was the polygamy thing. I believe Joseph Smith asked Nancy, Sidney's daughter, to become his wife. This is probably where enduring to the end became so difficult.

I think that sidney's going astray did not have much to do with Nancy. I think that it may have been due to polygamy or just his own human nature to go in a different direction after he was mugged, dragged through the streets, and suffered physical and emotional damage.

Amazingly, if sidney wrote the book of mormon, he certainly would have come clean after this episode.

[inquiringmind]

What is amazing about sidney is that he kept to his testimony. This was very important not just for him but also for his family. It meant that when facing his maker, he could not deny his testimony in the book of mormon. This would mean that he did endure to the end. Now what happens along the way can be considered a human experience.

Thank you.

[Avatar4321]

I have looked at this a bit and while I think you are right that the First Presidency no longer had the authority and was dissolved, I am not sure this was clear to the Church at the time. I think it took a while to figure it out. However, despite that, the voice of the people rejected Rigdon so, both in official scriptural basis and in terms of common consent, the 12 had the reins.

Oh i doubt it was clear at the time. But the revelation was given earlier. I think that was a majority of the basis for Brigham's claim though.