stemelbow wrote:...
So then why would Rigdon preach in Ohio something other than their supposed manufactured belief system?
Again, my best guess is that he felt he was preparing his
followers for the reception of new scriptures which would
inform them of how to practice true, authoritative religion,
and thus prepare for the expected Millennium.
As a minister to Alexander Campbell's "Reformed Baptists"
in northern Ohio, Rigdon was fostering and developing several
"restorationist" congregations, many of the members of which
eventually became Mormons. But according to their beliefs
in 1827-30, they could only accept additional/new religious
tenets if those doctrines could be found in holy scripture.
Pratt called Rigdon's followers "Rigdonites" -- and described
them as restorationists who had not yet found the true
divine authority on earth -- the authority necessary in order
to lay on hands and transmit the Holy Ghost. Campbell's
followers did administer the Holy Ghost shortly after baptism,
but not with a special claim to authority and not with the
expectation that the confirmed recipient would then be
empowered with spiritual gifts, the ministering of angels, etc.
Your best guess seems to suggest they actually believed they were doing something
good for Christ. I don't know if that works though.
There are several passages in the Book of Mormon in which it is
stated that any actions which bring a person to Christ are good
and holy. The door appears to be left open to deception. Nephi
poses as Laban for a holy cause -- other Nephite prophets are
engaged in various sorts of deception or stratagems, in order
that their people and religion will prevail and spread.
People like Sidney Rigdon felt that the Christian Bible had become
corrupted by devilish deception in the past -- the fulness of the
gospel had been erased from the Bible by priestly deception. I
suppose he felt that this fulness could also be restored by deception.
And why would they believe the Bible if they felt it had been corrupted?
If you look back at the history of those times, you'll see various
attempts by Christian reformers to remedy that problem. For example,
Alexander Campbell published a new Bible in 1822, in which he claimed
to offer a truer translation of the original scriptural teachings on
such things as proper baptism, the nature of angels, etc.
There were many Christians, and would-be-Christians, who believed
the basic origin and intent of the Bible, but who also felt it had not
been translated properly -- or that it had been added to, such as in
the case of Roman Catholics inserting several apocryphal books.
What's to believe if it had been corrupted?
The scholars among the Christians of those days argued over small
but seemingly significant differences in translations. These controversies
seeped down to the average members as being a controversy over
how much to trust any particular Bible edition. But, to make matters
worse, the Bible itself mentions (and quotes from) various books that
are not in the canon. For example, in the 1820s excerpts from the
"lost" Book of Enoch began appearing in various publications, and one
full edition of the volume was eventually published. Later the Book of
Jashur was translated from Hebrew into English, sounding very much
like additional scripture.
While perhaps 90% of American Christians were content to accept
and use the traditional KJV Bible, there was, in the 1820s, a growing
number of religionists who viewed the Bible as incomplete, corrupt, or
both. Various sects condemned all of contemporary Christianity as
being corrupt -- and even an abomination. The Quakers and Shakers
were quietly hostile to the doctrines and authority of the religion.
Reformers such as Barton Stone and Elias Smith advocated severe
reforms. Prophets such as Jacob Cochran and Abel Sarjent issued new
revelations and new interpretations of scriptural doctrines.
And what do you make of Joseph Smith' story pre-1827 related to this?
My best guess is that Luman Walters instilled in Smith the desire to
find and make use of a supernatural text -- a "golden Bible" from
which Smith and his family could communicate vast stores of secret
lore, hidden up from the foundation of the world. But the Smiths had
no such text.
At the same time, what Parley P. Pratt called the "Rigdonites" were
evolving away from Campbellism and expecting "a new religion and
a new Bible." The sorts of doctrinal changes that Rigdon's Ohio
followers came to accept when they converted to Mormonism were
only the tenets they could read from pages of scripture. That was
thir unchanging belief -- that religion could only be "restored" or
improved by consulting Divine, scriptural instructions.
Rigdon needed new scriptures, if he wished to evolve his Campbellite
followers into pure "Rigdonites." His 1824 experiment in publishing
the "Third Epistle of Peter" in Pittsburgh, had given him some small
experience in writing quasi-scriptural sounding passages, but that
short text could never provide the foundation for an entire
restoration of "the ancient order of things." Rigdon would have to
somehow come up with a much better and more complete new text.
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/1824Scot.htm#page36aAnd Smith was still looking for just such a text as Rigdon finally
accepted, in public, in Mentor, Ohio, in November of 1830.
I say that the possible coincidence is worth researching. Perhaps
most people will say it is a waste of time. But, with witnesses saying
that the Book of Mormon was written in Rigdon's cabin in 1826-27,
and that Joseph Smith came to visit and consult with Rigdon at that
very time period, I wish to study the claims more closely.
Or --- I could just go watch some movies and forget the whole thing.
Would he have been in on before Rigdon and Pratt met somehow?
A few early writers claimed that it was Pratt, in his role as a traveling
peddler in the 1820s, who introduced Smith and Rigdon. We do know
that Pratt lived very near Joseph Smith prior to his moving to Ohio in
the mid-1820s -- and that Pratt returned to practically the same place
where he had previously lived in New York, just before he met Hyrum.
So -- would Joseph Smith, Jr. have needed to know Sidney Rigdon
before (or contemporary with) Pratt's knowing Rigdon? I don't know.
So they were power hungry hypocrites who instead of seeking the recognition gave it to some other guy?
By 1844 Rigdon was no longer trying to give "recognition gave to some other guy" -- he was openly
calling Smith a fallen prophet and announcing himself as the Prophet Sidney, head of the Church.
But Rigdon failed in his post-Nauvoo splinter group, and fell back upon his earlier belief that a true
restoration of biblical religion required the joint-operation of two men -- a modern Aaron and a
modern Moses. It seems that Sidney could inspire the members, but he lacked the charisma needed
in order to hold a church together. So, he lived out the last years of his life acknowledging Smith
as having filled the prophetic office of "seer;" but he (Rigdon) still had not brought together the
"seer" and "spokesman" mentioned in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine & Covenants. He failed
to run a "one man show" and he failed in preserving a latter day "two man show."
So Pratt was a power-hungry hypocrite, too, because you accused Rigdon of being one some 17 years after they supposedly began conspiring?
all right. Sounds delicious at least.
Various people have differing views on Pratt's apostolic morality. Mine are
not very complimentary -- but I'm happy to learn any new facts which
serve to firmly establish him as an honest, sincere "special witness" for
Jesus Christ.
UD
