Rob Fotheringham: Evaluation of 1842 Whitney "revelation"

[Robin Hood]

Fotheringham is subtle in his manipulation of his audience. I just listened to the end part of the video as I was driving and spotted a glaring example near the end.
He goes through the transcript of the temple lot case and the back and forth between Kingsbury and the barrister. He then concludes that Kingsbury refused to swear that his evidence was true "for fear of perjuring himself" or opening himself up to a charge of perjury. But Kingsbury never said that... the lawyer did!
This was very underhand and calls into question Fotheringham's presentation of other material.
I don't get a good vibe from Fotheringham at all. He's not always wrong of course, but his arrangement of material and style of delivery seem calculated to lead the viewer to embrace only one conclusion... his.

The lawyers explored Kingsbury's point of view. Kingsbury clearly thought there was a difference in his mind between swearing and affirming. Kingsbury said so in his own words that swearing was more serious than affirming. You were trying to manipulate us by only referencing the legal definition and not the transcript and what Kingsbury actually said and believed.

Just saying...

Not so.
Fotheringham concludes by stating Kingsbury's refusal to swear was because of his fear of being charged with perjury, when in reality it was the lawyer who suggested that explanation, not Kingsbury.

But if the lawyers interpretation of Kingsbury's reluctance to swear for fear of a perjury charge was correct, I think it can be understood. The temple lot case wasn't going well. A little background: The LDS Church was not one of the parties contending for the property. It was between the Church of Christ Temple Lot and the RLDS Church. Kingsbury and others were simply called upon as witnesses to help the court determine whether the RLDS Church represented the original doctrines of Mormonism and thus were entitled to ownership of the Lot, or whether they weren't. It wasn't to determine who was if the RLDS weren't.
The case was decided in favour of the RLDS. Ultimately they failed to obtain the property due to the Law of Adverse Possession.
However, an RLDS victory (ie. the court declaring that the RLDS represented the original doctrines of Mormonism, including monogamy as per Joseph Smith's statements), could have opened Kingsbury up to a charge of perjury, at least in his mind. Distrust of the legal system in Missouri was such that any Mormon would have considered it foolhardy to give the Missourians any ammunition with which to prosecute a Saint, especially one hailing from the Brighamites. So perhaps he calculated that affirming would be safer. I think I would have done the same if I believed as Kingsbury appeared to regarding swear/affirm

[Reluctant Watchman]

Fotheringham is subtle in his manipulation of his audience. I just listened to the end part of the video as I was driving and spotted a glaring example near the end.
He goes through the transcript of the temple lot case and the back and forth between Kingsbury and the barrister. He then concludes that Kingsbury refused to swear that his evidence was true "for fear of perjuring himself" or opening himself up to a charge of perjury. But Kingsbury never said that... the lawyer did!
This was very underhand and calls into question Fotheringham's presentation of other material.
I don't get a good vibe from Fotheringham at all. He's not always wrong of course, but his arrangement of material and style of delivery seem calculated to lead the viewer to embrace only one conclusion... his.

The lawyers explored Kingsbury's point of view. Kingsbury clearly thought there was a difference in his mind between swearing and affirming. Kingsbury said so in his own words that swearing was more serious than affirming. You were trying to manipulate us by only referencing the legal definition and not the transcript and what Kingsbury actually said and believed.

Just saying...

Not so.
Fotheringham concludes by stating Kingsbury's refusal to swear was because of his fear of being charged with perjury, when in reality it was the lawyer who suggested that explanation, not Kingsbury.

But if the lawyers interpretation of Kingsbury's reluctance to swear for fear of a perjury charge was correct, I think it can be understood. The temple lot case wasn't going well. A little background: The LDS Church was not one of the parties contending for the property. It was between the Church of Christ Temple Lot and the RLDS Church. Kingsbury and others were simply called upon as witnesses to help the court determine whether the RLDS Church represented the original doctrines of Mormonism and thus were entitled to ownership of the Lot, or whether they weren't. It wasn't to determine who was if the RLDS weren't.
The case was decided in favour of the RLDS. Ultimately they failed to obtain the property due to the Law of Adverse Possession.
However, an RLDS victory (ie. the court declaring that the RLDS represented the original doctrines of Mormonism, including monogamy as per Joseph Smith's statements), could have opened Kingsbury up to a charge of perjury, at least in his mind. Distrust of the legal system in Missouri was such that any Mormon would have considered it foolhardy to give the Missourians any ammunition with which to prosecute a Saint, especially one hailing from the Brighamites. So perhaps he calculates that affirming would be safer.

I get the feeling that the motives behind the Brighamite involvement was more than being a supporting witness. They wanted to prove that everyone else was wrong. Why else would they throw their hat into the ring?

[Robin Hood]

The lawyers explored Kingsbury's point of view. Kingsbury clearly thought there was a difference in his mind between swearing and affirming. Kingsbury said so in his own words that swearing was more serious than affirming. You were trying to manipulate us by only referencing the legal definition and not the transcript and what Kingsbury actually said and believed.

Just saying...

Not so.
Fotheringham concludes by stating Kingsbury's refusal to swear was because of his fear of being charged with perjury, when in reality it was the lawyer who suggested that explanation, not Kingsbury.

But if the lawyers interpretation of Kingsbury's reluctance to swear for fear of a perjury charge was correct, I think it can be understood. The temple lot case wasn't going well. A little background: The LDS Church was not one of the parties contending for the property. It was between the Church of Christ Temple Lot and the RLDS Church. Kingsbury and others were simply called upon as witnesses to help the court determine whether the RLDS Church represented the original doctrines of Mormonism and thus were entitled to ownership of the Lot, or whether they weren't. It wasn't to determine who was if the RLDS weren't.
The case was decided in favour of the RLDS. Ultimately they failed to obtain the property due to the Law of Adverse Possession.
However, an RLDS victory (ie. the court declaring that the RLDS represented the original doctrines of Mormonism, including monogamy as per Joseph Smith's statements), could have opened Kingsbury up to a charge of perjury, at least in his mind. Distrust of the legal system in Missouri was such that any Mormon would have considered it foolhardy to give the Missourians any ammunition with which to prosecute a Saint, especially one hailing from the Brighamites. So perhaps he calculates that affirming would be safer.

I get the feeling that the motives behind the Brighamite involvement was more than being a supporting witness. They wanted to prove that everyone else was wrong. Why else would they throw their hat into the ring?

They were assisting the Temple Lot church, because they didn't want the property to fall into the hands of the RLDS.

[ransomme]

Fotheringham is subtle in his manipulation of his audience. I just listened to the end part of the video as I was driving and spotted a glaring example near the end.
He goes through the transcript of the temple lot case and the back and forth between Kingsbury and the barrister. He then concludes that Kingsbury refused to swear that his evidence was true "for fear of perjuring himself" or opening himself up to a charge of perjury. But Kingsbury never said that... the lawyer did!
This was very underhand and calls into question Fotheringham's presentation of other material.
I don't get a good vibe from Fotheringham at all. He's not always wrong of course, but his arrangement of material and style of delivery seem calculated to lead the viewer to embrace only one conclusion... his.

The lawyers explored Kingsbury's point of view. Kingsbury clearly thought there was a difference in his mind between swearing and affirming. Kingsbury said so in his own words that swearing was more serious than affirming. You were trying to manipulate us by only referencing the legal definition and not the transcript and what Kingsbury actually said and believed.

Just saying...

I'm not sure if Rob covered this or not, I don't remember, but did Kingsbury swear to anything else in the case? If he did swear about other things, but refused to swear about section 132 then that is suspect. But if he refused to swear about anything and stated this is because the Bible teaches us not to swear and only let our yeas and nays be yeas and nays that's another thing.

I looked at the pdf transcript and I think there are 3 volumes totalling some 1800 pages to the Temple Lot case so...I didn't take a look myself today

[Reluctant Watchman]

They were assisting the Temple Lot church, because they didn't want the property to fall into the hands of the RLDS.

And… to bolster their own authority as the one true church. If I’ve learned anything from these men, it’s that they usually didn’t do something out of the kindness of their hearts. There were always ulterior motives.

You, of anyone on the forum, should believe that there are other motives at play. You question the motives of every single sex abuse case presented on the forum. Why not your church leaders?

[ransomme]

Fotheringham is subtle in his manipulation of his audience. I just listened to the end part of the video as I was driving and spotted a glaring example near the end.
He goes through the transcript of the temple lot case and the back and forth between Kingsbury and the barrister. He then concludes that Kingsbury refused to swear that his evidence was true "for fear of perjuring himself" or opening himself up to a charge of perjury. But Kingsbury never said that... the lawyer did!
This was very underhand and calls into question Fotheringham's presentation of other material.
I don't get a good vibe from Fotheringham at all. He's not always wrong of course, but his arrangement of material and style of delivery seem calculated to lead the viewer to embrace only one conclusion... his.

The lawyers explored Kingsbury's point of view. Kingsbury clearly thought there was a difference in his mind between swearing and affirming. Kingsbury said so in his own words that swearing was more serious than affirming. You were trying to manipulate us by only referencing the legal definition and not the transcript and what Kingsbury actually said and believed.

Just saying...

Not so.
Fotheringham concludes by stating Kingsbury's refusal to swear was because of his fear of being charged with perjury, when in reality it was the lawyer who suggested that explanation, not Kingsbury.

But if the lawyers interpretation of Kingsbury's reluctance to swear for fear of a perjury charge was correct, I think it can be understood. The temple lot case wasn't going well. A little background: The LDS Church was not one of the parties contending for the property. It was between the Church of Christ Temple Lot and the RLDS Church. Kingsbury and others were simply called upon as witnesses to help the court determine whether the RLDS Church represented the original doctrines of Mormonism and thus were entitled to ownership of the Lot, or whether they weren't. It wasn't to determine who was if the RLDS weren't.
The case was decided in favour of the RLDS. Ultimately they failed to obtain the property due to the Law of Adverse Possession.
However, an RLDS victory (ie. the court declaring that the RLDS represented the original doctrines of Mormonism, including monogamy as per Joseph Smith's statements), could have opened Kingsbury up to a charge of perjury, at least in his mind. Distrust of the legal system in Missouri was such that any Mormon would have considered it foolhardy to give the Missourians any ammunition with which to prosecute a Saint, especially one hailing from the Brighamites. So perhaps he calculated that affirming would be safer. I think I would have done the same if I believed as Kingsbury appeared to regarding swear/affirm

Here are his words:
Q: To your mind there is a difference to swearing and affirmation?
A: Yes sir, I suppose there is.
...
Q: An oath is more binding than an affirmation?
A: It is more binding than an affirmation. Well, I don't know that it is more binding it is considered to be more serious.
...
Q: You consider there is more solemnity about an oath than an affirmation?
A: Well I consider so.
Q: You consider an oath is more binding?
A: Well I consider it is more binding.

So skip the legalize and look at the context. In Kingsbury's mind an affirmation was some less solemn than an oath and that possibly an oath is more binding. Saying otherwise, unwittingly or not, is an attempt at deception.

I say this because IMO, your point about Fatheringham being misleading, even trying to manipulate his audience is very weak. At first glance, it seems like you are looking for a reason to affirm your current bias. Will you swear to that?

[Robin Hood]

The lawyers explored Kingsbury's point of view. Kingsbury clearly thought there was a difference in his mind between swearing and affirming. Kingsbury said so in his own words that swearing was more serious than affirming. You were trying to manipulate us by only referencing the legal definition and not the transcript and what Kingsbury actually said and believed.

Just saying...

Not so.
Fotheringham concludes by stating Kingsbury's refusal to swear was because of his fear of being charged with perjury, when in reality it was the lawyer who suggested that explanation, not Kingsbury.

But if the lawyers interpretation of Kingsbury's reluctance to swear for fear of a perjury charge was correct, I think it can be understood. The temple lot case wasn't going well. A little background: The LDS Church was not one of the parties contending for the property. It was between the Church of Christ Temple Lot and the RLDS Church. Kingsbury and others were simply called upon as witnesses to help the court determine whether the RLDS Church represented the original doctrines of Mormonism and thus were entitled to ownership of the Lot, or whether they weren't. It wasn't to determine who was if the RLDS weren't.
The case was decided in favour of the RLDS. Ultimately they failed to obtain the property due to the Law of Adverse Possession.
However, an RLDS victory (ie. the court declaring that the RLDS represented the original doctrines of Mormonism, including monogamy as per Joseph Smith's statements), could have opened Kingsbury up to a charge of perjury, at least in his mind. Distrust of the legal system in Missouri was such that any Mormon would have considered it foolhardy to give the Missourians any ammunition with which to prosecute a Saint, especially one hailing from the Brighamites. So perhaps he calculated that affirming would be safer. I think I would have done the same if I believed as Kingsbury appeared to regarding swear/affirm

Here are his words:
Q: To your mind there is a difference to swearing and affirmation?
A: Yes sir, I suppose there is.
...
Q: An oath is more binding than an affirmation?
A: It is more binding than an affirmation. Well, I don't know that it is more binding it is considered to be more serious.
...
Q: You consider there is more solemnity about an oath than an affirmation?
A: Well I consider so.
Q: You consider an oath is more binding?
A: Well I consider it is more binding.

So skip the legalize and look at the context. In Kingsbury's mind an affirmation was some less solemn than an oath and that possibly an oath is more binding. Saying otherwise, unwittingly or not, is an attempt at deception.

I say this because IMO, your point about Fatheringham being misleading, even trying to manipulate his audience is very weak. At first glance, it seems like you are looking for a reason to affirm your current bias. Will you swear to that?

My current bias?
I have always (well, certainly the past 12 years I've been on the forum) been doubtful of the claim that Joseph was the origin of polygamy in the church, and have expressed that view frequently.
But I recognise manipulation when I see it, and Fotheringham engages in to the extent that, to the discerning viewer, it undermines his work to the point that it creates a degree of doubt.

Unlike some on this forum, I do not believe I'm somehow more intelligent than all the scholars and historians etc on both sides of the argument, or that I am especially gifted in being able to determine the truth. In the end, we have to acknowledge that there is evidence, even quality evidence, on both sides, and that greater minds than yours and mine have been unable to reach an unequivocal conclusion.

Why didn't Fotheringham include Sarah Whitney's later testimony regarding her relationship with Joseph? Surely, to someone who apparently is simply searching for truth, that would be a required inclusion. But he pretty well ignores it.
Surely in terms of evidence quality that should be right up there. Is that an oversight or a manipulation?
Fotheringham, like most of these YouTubers, has an agenda.

[ransomme]

Not so.
Fotheringham concludes by stating Kingsbury's refusal to swear was because of his fear of being charged with perjury, when in reality it was the lawyer who suggested that explanation, not Kingsbury.

But if the lawyers interpretation of Kingsbury's reluctance to swear for fear of a perjury charge was correct, I think it can be understood. The temple lot case wasn't going well. A little background: The LDS Church was not one of the parties contending for the property. It was between the Church of Christ Temple Lot and the RLDS Church. Kingsbury and others were simply called upon as witnesses to help the court determine whether the RLDS Church represented the original doctrines of Mormonism and thus were entitled to ownership of the Lot, or whether they weren't. It wasn't to determine who was if the RLDS weren't.
The case was decided in favour of the RLDS. Ultimately they failed to obtain the property due to the Law of Adverse Possession.
However, an RLDS victory (ie. the court declaring that the RLDS represented the original doctrines of Mormonism, including monogamy as per Joseph Smith's statements), could have opened Kingsbury up to a charge of perjury, at least in his mind. Distrust of the legal system in Missouri was such that any Mormon would have considered it foolhardy to give the Missourians any ammunition with which to prosecute a Saint, especially one hailing from the Brighamites. So perhaps he calculated that affirming would be safer. I think I would have done the same if I believed as Kingsbury appeared to regarding swear/affirm

Here are his words:
Q: To your mind there is a difference to swearing and affirmation?
A: Yes sir, I suppose there is.
...
Q: An oath is more binding than an affirmation?
A: It is more binding than an affirmation. Well, I don't know that it is more binding it is considered to be more serious.
...
Q: You consider there is more solemnity about an oath than an affirmation?
A: Well I consider so.
Q: You consider an oath is more binding?
A: Well I consider it is more binding.

So skip the legalize and look at the context. In Kingsbury's mind an affirmation was some less solemn than an oath and that possibly an oath is more binding. Saying otherwise, unwittingly or not, is an attempt at deception.

I say this because IMO, your point about Fatheringham being misleading, even trying to manipulate his audience is very weak. At first glance, it seems like you are looking for a reason to affirm your current bias. Will you swear to that?

My current bias?
I have always (well, certainly the past 12 years I've been on the forum) been doubtful of the claim that Joseph was the origin of polygamy in the church, and have expressed that view frequently.
But I recognise manipulation when I see it, and Fotheringham engages in to the extent that, to the discerning viewer, it undermines his work to the point that it creates a degree of doubt.

Unlike some on this forum, I do not believe I'm somehow more intelligent than all the scholars and historians etc on both sides of the argument, or that I am especially gifted in being able to determine the truth. In the end, we have to acknowledge that there is evidence, even quality evidence, on both sides, and that greater minds than yours and mine have been unable to reach an unequivocal conclusion.

Why didn't Fotheringham include Sarah Whitney's later testimony regarding her relationship with Joseph? Surely, to someone who apparently is simply searching for truth, that would be a required inclusion. But he pretty well ignores it.
Surely in terms of evidence quality that should be right up there. Is that an oversight or a manipulation?
Fotheringham, like most of these YouTubers, has an agenda.

To be fair (not biased) the presentation was titled, Evaluation of 1842 Whitney "revelation" and what you suggest is outside of that scope. Not everything will be covered in one video. Do you agree?

Good to know that this particular bias has a long history.