Sidney Rigdon - Quotes regarding Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith

[MDalby]

Are there any quotes from Sidney in the later years of his life regarding Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon? 

I am aware of Sidney's son John who reported his discussion with his father and mother.  But I am looking for other statements that Sidney gave that we can verify.

Quote

 

I concluded I would make an investigation for my own satisfaction and find out if I could if he had all these years been deceiving his family and the world, by telling that which was not true, and I was in earnest about it. If Sidney Rigdon, my father, had thrown his life away by telling a falsehood and bringing sorrow and disgrace upon his family, I wanted to know it and was determined to find out the facts, no matter what the consequences might be. I reached home in the fall of 1865, found my father in good health and (he) was very much pleased to see me. As he had not heard anything from me for some time, he was afraid that I had been killed by the Indians. 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 this 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 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 the 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 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." 1905-6, pp. 485-6.

Not only does John W. Rigdon give this valuable statement as to his father's position respecting the Book of Mormon, but he adds the following from his mother:

"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 believe her."
(BH Roberts, Defense of the Faith and the Saints, Vol. 2)

 

 

Edited November 6, 2017 by MDalby

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, MDalby said:

Are there any quotes from Sidney in the later years of his life regarding Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon? 

I am aware of Sidney's son John who reported his discussion with his father and mother.  But I am looking for other statements that Sidney gave that we can verify.

 

Interesting.  Can you tell us more about John W. Rigdon, was he a member of one of the Mormon traditions, I'm assuming he wasn't in Utah.  Also, where did these quotes come from if they were in the 1860s why so long before they were written, and how did they get into the B.H. Roberts work, do you know the original source text?  

I'm not aware of any of Sidney's quotes later in life.  I have yet to read the Rigdon biography written by Richard Van Wagoner, but I've heard its excellently written.  

[Jeanne]

Ooooo...I want to know more.  Did not know anything about John and his quest for truth from his father.  If this is all true..then where did all the other stories about Rigdon come from?

[RevTestament]

55 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Ooooo...I want to know more.  Did not know anything about John and his quest for truth from his father.  If this is all true..then where did all the other stories about Rigdon come from?

These seem to mostly have come from theories about the Spalding manuscript - that Ridgon had access to it, and stole it. From this he and Smith supposedly wrote the BoM. However, the course of history has pretty well destroyed the Spaulding manuscript story and revealed it as the revengeful machinations of one Hurlbutt. The original manuscript eventually turned up in Hawaii, and is now in the Oberlin Library. Although it is fairly evident that it is the source of most of the affidavits, it is also evident it is essentially nothing like the BoM. So, we don't hear this story much anymore. The antis don't want to be caught espousing such poor rhetoric. As a consequence the Rigdon authorship theories kind of died as well.

[Jeanne]

20 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

These seem to mostly have come from theories about the Spalding manuscript - that Ridgon had access to it, and stole it. From this he and Smith supposedly wrote the BoM. However, the course of history has pretty well destroyed the Spaulding manuscript story and revealed it as the revengeful machinations of one Hurlbutt. The original manuscript eventually turned up in Hawaii, and is now in the Oberlin Library. Although it is fairly evident that it is the source of most of the affidavits, it is also evident it is essentially nothing like the BoM. So, we don't hear this story much anymore. The antis don't want to be caught espousing such poor rhetoric. As a consequence the Rigdon authorship theories kind of died as well.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this.

[Calm]

On 2017-11-06 at 1:56 PM, Jeanne said:

Ooooo...I want to know more.  Did not know anything about John and his quest for truth from his father.  If this is all true..then where did all the other stories about Rigdon come from?

What stories are you thinking of?

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

What stories are you thinking of?

Not really stories..but some of his character traits.,,I often confuse him with Martin Harris...but wasn't there some problems between he and Joseph...and the church? 

[clarkgoble]

32 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Not really stories..but some of his character traits.,,I often confuse him with Martin Harris...but wasn't there some problems between he and Joseph...and the church? 

He didn't care for polygamy. I think some blamed his over inflammatory speech in Missouri for the 1838 War. I think that's a bit unfair though. 

[Jeanne]

26 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

He didn't care for polygamy. I think some blamed his over inflammatory speech in Missouri for the 1838 War. I think that's a bit unfair though. 

I don't know about the polygamy...but I have never heard about those speeches about the war...thank you...I will check this out.

[clarkgoble]

18 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I don't know about the polygamy...but I have never heard about those speeches about the war...thank you...I will check this out.

It was called the salt speech and it really inflamed already existing tensions. It was during tensions he described the non-Mormon neighbors of the Saints as salt that had lost its savour and was good only for trampling under foot. (Quoting Matt 5:13) I think the 1838 War was inevitable, but it certainly didn't help matters.

The Nauvoo issue is more complicated than it appears at first glance due to the machinations of John Bennett. Bennet had been a friend of Joseph but had started up a free love movement when Joseph was teaching polygamy in secret. According to some accounts he was telling women he could sleep with them without marriage and doing so quite a bit. There were accounts that he would then perform abortions on those who got pregnant. Although there are reasons to be somewhat skeptical of the abortion claims - however many including Joseph apparently believed them. This then ties back to Rigdon as Joseph likely had proposed to Nancy Rigdon, Sidney's daughter. However Bennett had apparently poisoned the well in various ways. Sidney had Joseph come to deal with the issue. Joseph came expecting to be dealing with Bennett only to find he was dealing with accusations from Nancy. This led to hard feelings.

Sidney was sent to Philadelphia ostensibly to set up residency so he could be Joseph's VP for the Presidency run. However some think it was to get Sidney out of the way due to this conflict. In any case there was a divide and hard feelings over polygamy. It also of course undermined Sidney's claims for succession. Although most people voting on the topic during the crisis didn't know all that background (nor the higher temple ordinances background - which Sidney neither had nor had keys for)

Joseph's journal presents it as this:

“President Joseph in company with Bishop Miller visited Elder Rigdon & his family 
and had much conversation about J.C. Bennet & others. Much unplesat [unpleasant] 
feeling was manifested by Elder Rigdon ’s family who were confounded 

There was a letter published in the Sangamo Journal purportedly from Nancy making various inflammatory claims. This was likely as inflaming to the public mood among non-Mormons as The Nauvoo Expositor was. Sidney Rigdon wrote a letter claiming it was fraudulent. There was a recent MHA article (July 2016) that strongly suggests it was Bennett writing the letter as revenge on Joseph for his excommunication. 

It's worth also contextualizing that after a particularly brutal beating and tar and feathering that Rigdon had come to have severe mental illness. Today we'd call it a combination of PTSD, depression and probably bipolar flareups. He was often bedridden and at times was a bit unpredictable in his behaviors. So even independent of the Bennett/Nancy Rigdon issue he'd already been somewhat marginalized due to those health issues.

Edited November 9, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

It was called the salt speech and it really inflamed already existing tensions. It was during tensions he described the non-Mormon neighbors of the Saints as salt that had lost its savour and was good only for trampling under foot. (Quoting Matt 5:13) I think the 1838 War was inevitable, but it certainly didn't help matters.

The Nauvoo issue is more complicated than it appears at first glance due to the machinations of John Bennett. Bennet had been a friend of Joseph but had started up a free love movement when Joseph was teaching polygamy in secret. According to some accounts he was telling women he could sleep with them without marriage and doing so quite a bit. There were accounts that he would then perform abortions on those who got pregnant. Although there are reasons to be somewhat skeptical of the abortion claims - however many including Joseph apparently believed them. This then ties back to Rigdon as Joseph likely had proposed to Nancy Rigdon, Sidney's daughter. However Bennett had apparently poisoned the well in various ways. Sidney had Joseph come to deal with the issue. Joseph came expecting to be dealing with Bennett only to find he was dealing with accusations from Nancy. This led to hard feelings.

Sidney was sent to Philadelphia ostensibly to set up residency so he could be Joseph's VP for the Presidency run. However some think it was to get Sidney out of the way due to this conflict. In any case there was a divide and hard feelings over polygamy. It also of course undermined Sidney's claims for succession. Although most people voting on the topic during the crisis didn't know all that background (nor the higher temple ordinances background - which Sidney neither had nor had keys for)

Joseph's journal presents it as this:

“President Joseph in company with Bishop Miller visited Elder Rigdon & his family 
and had much conversation about J.C. Bennet & others. Much unplesat [unpleasant] 
feeling was manifested by Elder Rigdon ’s family who were confounded 

There was a letter published in the Sangamo Journal purportedly from Nancy making various inflammatory claims. This was likely as inflaming to the public mood among non-Mormons as The Nauvoo Expositor was. Sidney Rigdon wrote a letter claiming it was fraudulent. There was a recent MHA article (July 2016) that strongly suggests it was Bennett writing the letter as revenge on Joseph for his excommunication. 

It's worth also contextualizing that after a particularly brutal beating and tar and feathering that Rigdon had come to have severe mental illness. Today we'd call it a combination of PTSD, depression and probably bipolar flareups. He was often bedridden and at times was a bit unpredictable in his behaviors. So even independent of the Bennett/Nancy Rigdon issue he'd already been somewhat marginalized due to those health issues.

Okay...a lot of this sounds so familiar.  Thank you.  Now I know what people are talking about when the "Salt Speech" is mentioned.  Wow....what interesting people...I have to smile that Nancy Rigdon had her nose in a lot of places..thanks again.  I remember the stories of Bennett and his use of polygamy in his own way.  I have to wonder though...if the Lord wanted to really instill polygamy for these times, why he would have it done in secrecy as it made it a difficult situation even worse. 

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Okay...a lot of this sounds so familiar.  Thank you.  Now I know what people are talking about when the "Salt Speech" is mentioned.  Wow....what interesting people...I have to smile that Nancy Rigdon had her nose in a lot of places..thanks again.  I remember the stories of Bennett and his use of polygamy in his own way.  I have to wonder though...if the Lord wanted to really instill polygamy for these times, why he would have it done in secrecy as it made it a difficult situation even worse. 

I'm not at all convinced the Lord wanted it done in secret. Indeed one of the things Brigham did was make it pretty public (albeit after the attacks on Mormons in Nauvoo -- going by memory but I think he waited until everyone had been evacuated from Nauvoo after the attacks with canons by anti-Mormons)

The counter-argument is that there already was strong anti-Mormon fervor including attempted extermination in Missouri. Missourians were still trying to get Joseph Smith when he was in Nauvoo. Further once only rumors of polygamy started up then that's when anti-Mormon fervor in Illinois started up ended the relative peace the Saints had experienced for a while. So I think it safe to say polygamy wasn't just controversial it was extremely dangerous.

Even in Utah, away from everyone, arguably the United States sent troops to reign in the Mormons because of polygamy. So I think just how infuriating polygamy was to people - to the point of being quite willing to kill Mormons - can't be underestimated. 

I also think that the whole Joseph - Emma relation can't be neglected. Now I personally think Joseph should have been obedient to God in polygamy if God was commanding it. If that meant divorcing Emma he should have. However given all Emma had done and given the unambiguous love of Joseph for Emma, I can completely understand why he was unwilling to do that. However I tend to think it made things worse.

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The counter-argument is that there already was strong anti-Mormon fervor including attempted extermination in Missouri. Missourians were still trying to get Joseph Smith when he was in Nauvoo. Further once only rumors of polygamy started up then that's when anti-Mormon fervor in Illinois started up ended the relative peace the Saints had experienced for a while. So I think it safe to say polygamy wasn't just controversial it was extremely dangerous.

Clark, Polygamy was hardly the tipping point for the hard feelings that developed against the Saints in Illinois. It was the growing political power that they wielded which had so many non-LDS with political aspirations worried. The Warsaw Signal was started by Thomas C. Sharpe as an editorial tool to fight against that perceived threat and he actually formed a an anti-Mormon political party which provided a platform for candidates to run against LDS candidates for different offices in Hancock County. Sharpe ran numerous attack pieces against the Mormons over the years in his newspaper,  but there was very little on polygamy. It was the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor which finally set Sharpe off and he spearheaded the mob that attacked and killed Joseph and Hyrum.

The reports by Governor Ford to the Illinois legislature in 1845 and 1846 also did not mention polygamy as any of the inflammatory items that continued to keep the old Hancock County citizens riled up against the Mormons. Polygamy doubtless had some part in the furor that developed but, going by the actual rhetoric that was leveled against the Mormons, it was not nearly as significant as the political aspect.

The Oneida group that operated in New York for about three decades had even more curious marriage arrangements but were not perceived as a political threat and were mostly left alone. The group fell apart from internal friction rather than external pressure. This is just to point out that weird marriage practices were not necessarily a cause for great alarm during that day and age.

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Even in Utah, away from everyone, arguably the United States sent troops to reign in the Mormons because of polygamy. So I think just how infuriating polygamy was to people - to the point of being quite willing to kill Mormons - can't be underestimated. 

Again, I think that you have over stated the case here. The 1858 Utah War was more of a reaction to several appointed Utah officials pretty much being run out of the state and reporting that Utah was in a state of insurrection. Even after Brigham Young was replaced by Alfred Cummings polygamy was practiced for many years. The troops did nothing to stop it nor did Alfred Cummings. It did become an increasing point of contention as time went on though. But historically it was not the flash point that caused the early enmity against the Mormons in New York, Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, and the early years in Utah.

Glenn

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Again, I think that you have over stated the case here. The 1858 Utah War was more of a reaction to several appointed Utah officials pretty much being run out of the state and reporting that Utah was in a state of insurrection. Even after Brigham Young was replaced by Alfred Cummings polygamy was practiced for many years. The troops did nothing to stop it nor did Alfred Cummings. It did become an increasing point of contention as time went on though. But historically it was not the flash point that caused the early enmity against the Mormons in New York, Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, and the early years in Utah.

The Republicans prior to the civil war were running against the twin evils of slavery and polygamy. The reason Mormons were left alone for a while was largely the civil war. While some have argued that the economic and political order was at least as big a threat if not bigger than polygamy I confess I'm not convinced. Although it is interesting that the heavy communitarian projects decreased around the time polygamy did. 

In any case I'm far, far from convinced the US government would have sent troops the way they did had it been anyone other than the Mormons.

Quote

Polygamy was hardly the tipping point for the hard feelings that developed against the Saints in Illinois. It was the growing political power that they wielded which had so many non-LDS with political aspirations worried. The Warsaw Signal was started by Thomas C. Sharpe as an editorial tool to fight against that perceived threat and he actually formed a an anti-Mormon political party which provided a platform for candidates to run against LDS candidates for different offices in Hancock County. Sharpe ran numerous attack pieces against the Mormons over the years in his newspaper,  but there was very little on polygamy. It was the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor which finally set Sharpe off and he spearheaded the mob that attacked and killed Joseph and Hyrum.

The reports by Governor Ford to the Illinois legislature in 1845 and 1846 also did not mention polygamy as any of the inflammatory items that continued to keep the old Hancock County citizens riled up against the Mormons. Polygamy doubtless had some part in the furor that developed but, going by the actual rhetoric that was leveled against the Mormons, it was not nearly as significant as the political aspect.

Just to be clear I was making the counterpoint against my own position. As I said I am far from convinced the Lord wanted it kept secret.

While growing political power definitely was a big issue, especially given how the saints tended to vote as a block both in Missouri and in Illinois I think you downplay polygamy too much. Certainly many of the leadership had the fear of what polygamy would do. Orson Hyde's well known comment indicates that. I don't want to portray it as if polygamy were the only issue. Far from it there were lots of reasons including some legitimate gripes that caused non-Mormons to be angry at the Mormons. It's worth noting that many of those riling up the mobs were bitter former Mormons.

It's pretty hard to see the Laws actions against Joseph not largely tied to polygamy though. Not just the end note of the Nauvoo Expositor but the earlier attempts to have him indicted for adultery. Likewise when you look at the attacks by Bennett including the forged Nancy Rigdon letter that was wrapped up with polygamy. Now it's true again that an other common complaint was Joseph drawing too much power to himself. But if the key persecutions were in 1843 and 1844 culminating in his death, it seems pretty hard to say rumors of polygamy particularly by the Laws and Bennett played a minor role. 

Now maybe the underlying root cause was power but the symbol that allowed people to reach the fervor they did was polygamy IMO. Again I suspect how one views it depends upon what role you see the ex-Mormons playing in it all. I'm not sure Ford's comments ultimately are as useful in that regard.

To your point about the Warsaw Signal, he accused the Mormons of spiritual wifery and polygamy a fair bit in 1844. Even in 1843 he had comments about polygamy. Back in 1842 he put the rumors of Orson Pratt's wife up and how people thought Pratt had committed suicide over it.  And of course Bennett's expose was 1842.

But your point about power is well made.

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It's pretty hard to see the Laws actions against Joseph not largely tied to polygamy though. Not just the end note of the Nauvoo Expositor but the earlier attempts to have him indicted for adultery. Likewise when you look at the attacks by Bennett including the forged Nancy Rigdon letter that was wrapped up with polygamy. Now it's true again that an other common complaint was Joseph drawing too much power to himself. But if the key persecutions were in 1843 and 1844 culminating in his death, it seems pretty hard to say rumors of polygamy particularly by the Laws and Bennett played a minor role. 

Now maybe the underlying root cause was power but the symbol that allowed people to reach the fervor they did was polygamy IMO. Again I suspect how one views it depends upon what role you see the ex-Mormons playing in it all. I'm not sure Ford's comments ultimately are as useful in that regard.

To your point about the Warsaw Signal, he accused the Mormons of spiritual wifery and polygamy a fair bit in 1844. Even in 1843 he had comments about polygamy. Back in 1842 he put the rumors of Orson Pratt's wife up and how people thought Pratt had committed suicide over it.  And of course Bennett's expose was 1842.

But your point about power is well made.

Clark, there were no mentions of polygamy, per se, in the Signal articles that you linked to. There is mention of the spiritual wifery, which was probably lumped in with polygamy by most at the time, from some reports mostly by disaffected Mormons, four or five, including the Expositor. In the years preceding 1844 there was very little editorializing about it. I mainly looked at non LDS articles and books trying to find what the people writing those articles felt were the roots of the problems in Nauvoo were that led to the murders and expulsion of the Mormons from Illinois. In the “HISTORY OF ILLINOIS AND HER PEOPLE” BY PROFESSOR GEORGE W. SMITH, M. A. Volume II the subject of Spiritual Wives does not come up until 1844 and is given a two paragraph treatment.

I am not saying that polygamy had nothing to do with the heightened prejudice, etc. that boiled over in 1844. It almost assuredly stoked the already hot flames but I believe that it's effects on the citizenry of the time are being over played. The evidence in the non LDS articles does not support a major role.

As to you belief that the U.S would not have sent troops against any other territory except the Mormon occupied Utah Territory, I pretty much agree. 

Glenn