Sydney Rigdon

[CASteinman]

It's interesting some LDS critics push hard on the "Rigdon Theory" for a way to explain the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. I say interesting, because in doing so they seem to acknowledge young, semi-literate Joseph Smith couldn't possibly have produced it on his own without some major outside help. They unwittigly confirm to the faithful that the coming forth of the Nephite record was modern miracle.

I used to think that way also. And I think that is the genesis of this idea. But I believe that there is a different reason now. I think that as with much of Mormon "History" there are so many voices out there digging up all manner of so-called "witnesses" of this or that or the other thing that some people now may consider it a valid historical theory and never think about the implications.

I believe that there are a lot of things out there now that seem to be "valid" historical information, when really its not. But it sucks people in and gets them excited.

Edited April 30, 2013 by CASteinman

[Gervin]

I don't think it's crazy to entertain the notion given the considerable overlap between the Book of Mormon's teachings and Sidney Rigdon's pre-1830 beliefs (see here, for example). But the historical evidence doesn't support Rigdon's involvement.

"Considerable overlap" must be historical evidence of something. If there were other "overlaps" wouldn't that at least raise the question, how many overlaps tip a coincidence?

[Gervin]

I suspect this is no one credible.

Sounds like you know sump'em.

Anyone proposing the theory that this is Rigdon's work would have to explain (1) why he would give it to Joseph Smith in the first place, (2) why he would later play along with Joseph Smith as Joseph Started a Church, but (3) why he was NOT part of the Church organization from the start, and (4) why he continued to play along all the way to his death, even after he was no longer associated with the Church and Joseph was dead.

If you didn't assume that he just wrote it all and just gave it away, but, rather, assumed that he had a hand in it, then (1) there was a plan, (2) the plan was executed, and (3) the plan changed. (4) playing along isn't so hard - sometimes easier than admitting that you're playing along.

[canard78]

I don't think it's crazy to entertain the notion given the considerable overlap between the Book of Mormon's teachings and Sidney Rigdon's pre-1830 beliefs (see here, for example). But the historical evidence doesn't support Rigdon's involvement.

Whenever I read things like this I realise I can look at the same evidence from different approaches:

- Cowdery was in Ethan Smiths congregation (ahah!)

- Harris met Mitchill before the translation started (ahah!)

- The notion of visions/revelations and buried gold treasures were all common beliefs in the early 19thC (ahah!)

- Rigdon already believed a lot of the messages found in the BoM (ahah!)

Or... My mum already held a lot of the beliefs found in LDS doctrine before she found it. No-one's suggesting SHE wrote the BoM!

Instead, the same evidence that can be used against could also simply either heaven or coincidence laying the groundwork for ensuring the BoM and message of the restoration would have a receptive audience. A bit like teaser trailers and short clips from an upcoming movie.

They can't all have been 'in on it' - so at least one of the 'evidences against' has to be either coincidence or the heavens prepping the audience. If that's the case for one, it can also be the case for all.

[Glenn101]

"Considerable overlap" must be historical evidence of something. If there were other "overlaps" wouldn't that at least raise the question, how many overlaps tip a coincidence?

When those overlaps are to be found in the Bible. If you will do your homework, you will find that Rigdon's pre 1830 beliefs all had their genesis in the Bible, especially the New Testament.

If you didn't assume that he just wrote it all and just gave it away, but, rather, assumed that he had a hand in it, then (1) there was a plan, (2) the plan was executed, and (3) the plan changed. (4) playing along isn't so hard - sometimes easier than admitting that you're playing along.

Assumptions without a basis are meaningless. Again, you need to do your homework. Rigdon had a successful congregation in Mentor, Ohio at the time. He gave that up to play second bananna to an unlearned farmboy?

Glenn

[canard78]

As I understand, there were several people who reported seeing Rigdon at or near Joseph Smith's home before the Book of Mormon was published. So, I don't think it's crazy to leave open the possibility that they did indeed meet beforehand.

I'd be interested to see some reliable references for this. I would imagine they would be mostly hearsay and gossip, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

(So yes, I guess this is a soft CFR, but with a please).

[Gervin]

When those overlaps are to be found in the Bible. If you will do your homework, you will find that Rigdon's pre 1830 beliefs all had their genesis in the Bible, especially the New Testament.

Assumptions without a basis are meaningless. Again, you need to do your homework. Rigdon had a successful congregation in Mentor, Ohio at the time. He gave that up to play second bananna to an unlearned farmboy?

Glenn

So, Nevo should have said, "I don't think it's crazy to entertain the notion given the considerable overlap between the Book of Mormon's teachings and Sidney Rigdon's pre-1830 beliefs Biblical scripture."

"Do your homework" is, imho, a meaningless response. If there were absolutely no Rigdon motivations the your characterization might be correct. I think he had motivations to be close to Smith. I don't consider Smith "an unlearned farmboy."

[Gervin]

I'd be interested to see some reliable references for this. I would imagine they would be mostly hearsay and gossip, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

(So yes, I guess this is a soft CFR, but with a please).

Nevo's link in post #70 described this.

[Calm]

"Considerable overlap" must be historical evidence of something. If there were other "overlaps" wouldn't that at least raise the question, how many overlaps tip a coincidence?

Would depend on what the source of the overlaps were. If, for example, Rigdon got his ideas from the Bible, then it would hardly be surprising to see some of his ideas in the BoM if one assumes it was inspired by God.

add-on: I see Glenn followed the same line of reasoning.

Edited April 30, 2013 by calmoriah

[Glenn101]

Would depend on what the source of the overlaps were. If, for example, Rigdon got his ideas from the Bible, then it would hardly be surprising to see some of his ideas in the BoM if one assumes it was inspired by God.

add-on: I see Glenn followed the same line of reasoning.

In fact, would you not expect to see overlap with various beliefs extant in Joseph's day since the religious professors of thetime were attempting to base their theology on the Bible? Overlap, as well as differences, which are there also, because of the claims that the professors of relgion of the day had all gone astray to one degree or another.

Glenn

[CASteinman]

Sounds like you know sump'em.

Well I know you didn't name names

If you didn't assume that he just wrote it all and just gave it away,

Seems to me a good assumption as there is no evidence to support that conjecture at all

but, rather, assumed that he had a hand in it, then (1) there was a plan, (2) the plan was executed, and (3) the plan changed. (4) playing along isn't so hard - sometimes easier than admitting that you're playing along.

Another scenario with exactly zero evidence and equal credibility