Almost all here accept Rigdon helped Joe with his con - and some (not me) believe he helped write the BoM and then invented a way of meeting missionaries and being converted from supposed ignorance.
Why then didn't Rigdon admit his role? After all he was sidelined by Joe, abandoned by Brigham and his own church was tiny. He could've done a lot of damage by defecting.
Is there any chance he was a true believer?

and do what? admit that Joe had completely hijacked and took over the scam that he and Oliver Cow-dairy had cooked up? That would be like calling the police to complain that another drug dealer had stolen your inventory of drugs and drug money cash. Yah, that would work.

Rigdon was nuts, a true head case.

He actually believed that God was talking to him and probably believed that He was talking to Smith too. Evidence didn't matter.

In his mind, there was nothing to come clean about.

Three reasons, I suspect.

1). He suffered from a mental illness.

2). His chosen occupation was that of a preacher and therefore couldn't come clean about participating in a religious con without losing his profession.

3). He was known to be afraid of Brigham Young and thought Young was out to kill him. If he spilled the beans, that might have caused Young to carry out his threats.

I agree. Rigdon was delusional and as such was not capable of revealing the "truth." He believe he had the truth.

Rigdon was never the same after he was thrown from a horse and was severely thumped on his noggin.

His craziness lent itself well to the scam.

A shortened gravy train is better than none at all.

He did defect and create the rigdonite church. But Rigdon had incredible sway back in the kirtland days. He was the one who spearheaded communal living and sharing resources. He was the mouth piece of Joesph, till joe matured and was able to speak to a crowd well. He also gave the speech threatening the exterminamtion of missorians and fired up the mormons and gentiles to eventually wage civil war on the mormons.

But rigdon didn't reveal anything scandalous because he believed in it all.

I just got in from a late night behind the wheel (picking stragglers off the airport), and I don't remember who it was that presented at an Exmormon Conference and gave this same diagnosis. AS I recall he had somes solid clinical credentials (I have the grad classes and work experience, but I bailed before I obtained certification). It doesn't really take a lot to come to that conclusion if "one knows the crazies" and reads the actual authentic history and not the faith-promoting horse $#!%...

My take is Rigdon was a "moralistic fanatic," and an easy smark for Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and Parley P. Pratt.

The individual who did reveal all, and admit he was duped, was William Law...

http://www.mrm.org/law-interview

Per Beck & Freeman on narcissitic disorders, I note that relationshps with narcissists are often explosive, frequently intense but short-lived, and leave the "victims" fealing exploited.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2016 06:30AM by SL Cabbie.

My take on him was that he was a preacher who
1) was mentally damaged due to the fall from the horse years prior (according to people who knew him)
2) he was still very well spoken and a good writer and
3) he believed totally in his own religious interpretations, wanted very much to promote his doctrines, and accomplished that through assisting with the BoM writing. The BoM contained HIS sermons and HIS doctrines PRINTED FOR ALL TO SEE IN A BOOK, and he'd never give that up. (this part is my opinion, but partly based on comments found in letters or journals of people who knew him)

Rigdon claimed to have seen a vision when Joseph saw the Lord (See Dibble's account recorded in The Juvenile Instructor, 15 May, 1892.)

Rigdon and Smith collaborated on shared revelations, beyond The Book of Moses and The Inspired Translation of the Bible. Examples of "revelations" or "visions" given to both Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon include Doctrine and Covenants sections 35, 37, 40, 44, 71, 73, 76 and 100. In 1892, Philo Dibble, an eyewitness to the revelation of Section 76, gave the following description of the event:


The vision which is recorded in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants was given at the house of 'Father Johnson,' in Hyrum [sic], Ohio, and during the time that Joseph and Sidney were in the spirit and saw the heavens open, there were other men in the room, perhaps twelve, among whom I was one during a part of the time-probably two-thirds of the time,-I saw the glory and felt the power, but did not see the vision.

The events and conversation, while they were seeing what is written (and many things were seen and related that are not written), I will relate as minutely as is necessary.

Joseph would, at intervals, say: "What do I see?" as one might say while looking out the window and beholding what all in the room could not see. Then he would relate what he had seen or what he was looking at. Then Sidney replied, "I see the same." Presently Sidney would say "what do I see?" and would repeat what he had seen or was seeing, and Joseph would reply, "I see the same."

This manner of conversation was repeated at short intervals to the end of the vision, and during the whole time not a word was spoken by any other person. Not a sound nor motion made by anyone but Joseph and Sidney, and it seemed to me that they never moved a joint or limb during the time I was there, which I think was over an hour, and to the end of the vision.

Joseph sat firmly and calmly all the time in the midst of a magnificent glory, but Sidney sat limp and pale, apparently as limber as a rag, observing which, Joseph remarked, smilingly, "Sidney is not used to it as I am."
(Cited on page 112 in Van Wagoner (1994).


Now no one else in the room saw the supposed vision so either Rigdon lied about it to impress others, was in on it with Joseph or could have been manipulated by Joseph into imagining a vision. Or of course he could have actually seen a vision but why on earth would he abandon Joseph and the Church if he really saw the Lord?

In any case, he doesn't appear to be the most trustworthy of 'witnesses' for the LDS Church. Here's an interesting essay and BOM theory on Rigdon: http://www.mormonthink.com/mormonstudiesrigdon.htm

This is just one more evidence that Rigdon was behind the whole thing with Joseph and Oliver. It seems unpopular to accept the evidence that Rigdon was behind the Book of Mormon, but it is the only theory that makes any sense to me. Joseph would have completely gotten rid of Rigdon during his lifetime, but he always was constrained by the knowledge Rigdon had regarding the real truth of the beginnings of the LDS Church.

Rigdon was the real pious fraud. Smith was the old fashioned kind - just a fraud.

I agree. I think Rigdon was in on it from the beginning, but had good intentions. Smith was just a charismatic, good-for-nothing scoundrel. Smith would have given up the charade before Rigdon ever would have...if he didn't have such an immense ego...

I think Smith reinvented himself several times but things about him remained constants - love of power, money and women.