Rob Fotheringham: Evaluation of 1842 Whitney "revelation"

[BuriedTartaria]

With so much evidence of documents being altered and a culture of dishonesty repeatedly manifested at the highest levels of the church the only chance we have to understand what really happened with LDS polygamy is to carefully consider the legitimacy of the available evidence. It's evidence quality, not quantity, that matters most. And that brings us to the church's claims about Sarah Ann Whitney....... This alleged marriage is important because it's unusually well-documented. Including a revelation that Joseph Smith is supposed to have received.

For what it's worth, the only source document the church claims to have for D&C 132 is in the handwriting of Joseph C. Kingsbury. The man who refused to swear that what he claimed was true. The last point on the Whitney revelation timeline is 1869 when both Sarah Ann Whitney and Mother Whitney claimed that Sarah Ann married Joseph Smith as a plural wife in 1842 in affidavits they signed that were collected by apostle Joseph F. Smith.

In summary, the highly problematic July 1842 Whitney revelation is a good example of the low quality evidence employed by the church to accuse Joseph Smith of participation in polygamy. Our focus has to be on evidence quality, not quantity, to determine if polygamy came from the Lord. Upon investigation, the purported Whitney revelation appears to be one more piece of untrustworthy evidence accepted uncritically by the church to legitimize the practice of plural marriage. If the Whitney revelation was forged, the church's case against Joseph begins to unravel very quickly.

They thought excommunicating him would send a message and quiet the issue. They were wrong.



Do organizations and institutions ever unite one with another and settle a matter and reaffirm one another for mutual gain (money, protection, power)? Do you believe every conclusion reached and every story told by institutional history and academics?

"It's evidence quality, not quantity, that matters the most."

"Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"

"You don’t know me; you never knew my heart."

[Shawn Henry]

Joseph C. Kingsbury. The man who refused to swear that what he claimed was true.

Wow!!!

I've never heard before the Kingsbury wouldn't swear that what he said of 132 was true. Has anyone else heard this?

This is the complete opposite of the Law of Witnesses.

Joseph Smith never testifies and Joseph Kingsbury refuses to.

[BuriedTartaria]

Joseph C. Kingsbury. The man who refused to swear that what he claimed was true.

Wow!!!

I've never heard before the Kingsbury wouldn't swear that what he said of 132 was true. Has anyone else heard this?

This is the complete opposite of the Law of Witnesses.

Joseph Smith never testifies and Joseph Kingsbury refuses to.

I'm working on finishing the whole video from Rob so since I haven't finished it, I've only heard part of the section about Kingsbury and 1832. It's near the end of the video. From what I gather, Kingsbury is being asked about in a court of law if he will swear or affirm Joseph taught him plural marriage. The court recorded writing shows he is pressed about swearing to the truth that Joseph taught him this. He said he would affirm Joseph taught him that. The attorney pressed and asked if he would swear to it. He dodged and said he would affirm it. The attorney presses again stating he would not swear that Joseph taught him this but he would affirm it. He replied "Yes, sir".

That court, the contemporary world even, did not view Joseph as a polygamist. It looks like cooking the books in a world completely removed from the United States (territory of Utah) and telling stories about Joseph for decades just completely changed his image and it looks like a manufactured work. This was gaslighting and the work of making up a narrative and affirming that narrative from mutual affirmation from of a multitude of institutions. Polygamy exploded after Joseph and Hyrum were out of the picture.

[Alexander]

Ah good old Heber Kimball and his "Preast Hood" misspellings giving it away lol

[Robin Hood]

Joseph C. Kingsbury. The man who refused to swear that what he claimed was true.

Wow!!!

I've never heard before the Kingsbury wouldn't swear that what he said of 132 was true. Has anyone else heard this?

This is the complete opposite of the Law of Witnesses.

Joseph Smith never testifies and Joseph Kingsbury refuses to.

See, this is why I am suspect of Fotheringham. Joseph Kingsbury didn't swear to anything. But he did affirm.
When I went to court I refused to swear on the Bible I was offered because that very same Bible instructs us not to swear on or by anything. Our yay should be yay, and our nay should be nay. So I was asked to affirm instead, which I did.
This is what Kingsbury did in the Temple Lot case.

[BuriedTartaria]

See, this is why I am suspect of Fotheringham. Joseph Kingsbury didn't swear to anything. But he did affirm.
When I went to court I refused to swear on the Bible I was offered because that very same Bible instructs us not to swear on or by anything. Our yay should be yay, and our nay should be nay. So I was asked to affirm instead, which I did.
This is what Kingsbury did in the Temple Lot case.

You won't swear to the truth of the beauty of celestial plural marriage? Then you deny the faith and will reap the consequences.

[Robin Hood]

See, this is why I am suspect of Fotheringham. Joseph Kingsbury didn't swear to anything. But he did affirm.
When I went to court I refused to swear on the Bible I was offered because that very same Bible instructs us not to swear on or by anything. Our yay should be yay, and our nay should be nay. So I was asked to affirm instead, which I did.
This is what Kingsbury did in the Temple Lot case.

You won't swear to the truth of the beauty of celestial plural marriage? Then you deny the faith and will reap the consequences.

I don't understand your point.

[Alexander]

Hilarious that the Whitney document cribbed D&C 101. Especially risible is the ironic phrase used, "keeping yourselves wholly for each other, and from all others".

[Shawn Henry]

See, this is why I am suspect of Fotheringham. Joseph Kingsbury didn't swear to anything. But he did affirm.
When I went to court I refused to swear on the Bible I was offered because that very same Bible instructs us not to swear on or by anything. Our yay should be yay, and our nay should be nay. So I was asked to affirm instead, which I did.
This is what Kingsbury did in the Temple Lot case.

I don't see it that way.

In your example, you wouldn't swear in on the Bible, which no one had an issue with back in his day. With Kingsbury, he was likely already sworn in, but his refusing to swear was related to Joseph and polygamy. He's opting for a less committed position because he feels guilty actually swearing to a known lie.

[Shawn Henry]

Ah good old Heber Kimball and his "Preast Hood" misspellings giving it away lol

He spelled many "menny", which is fine in and of itself, because many were poor readers back then, but is it fine for an Apostle, one who is supposed to be proficient with the scriptures. How many times does one have to read the Bible and BoM to know how to spell many. I don't think he was ever committed to reading the scriptures, but I could be wrong.

[Shawn Henry]

The court recorded writing shows he is pressed about swearing to the truth that Joseph taught him this. He said he would affirm Joseph taught him that. The attorney pressed and asked if he would swear to it. He dodged and said he would affirm it. The attorney presses again stating he would not swear that Joseph taught him this but he would affirm it. He replied "Yes, sir".

Sounds like he knows it's a lie.

Imagine you're the sole person upon whom hangs this doctrine that you heard straight from the mouth of Joseph, yet you won't swear to it.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Lying, according to polygamists, is A-ok.

[Robin Hood]

See, this is why I am suspect of Fotheringham. Joseph Kingsbury didn't swear to anything. But he did affirm.
When I went to court I refused to swear on the Bible I was offered because that very same Bible instructs us not to swear on or by anything. Our yay should be yay, and our nay should be nay. So I was asked to affirm instead, which I did.
This is what Kingsbury did in the Temple Lot case.

I don't see it that way.

In your example, you wouldn't swear in on the Bible, which no one had an issue with back in his day. With Kingsbury, he was likely already sworn in, but his refusing to swear was related to Joseph and polygamy. He's opting for a less committed position because he feels guilty actually swearing to a known lie.

That was not the case. He refused to swear to anything, even his own ordination to the priesthood in the church. And people who read the Bible did have an issue swearing on it even in his day.
Affirming is not a less committed position. It is in accordance with Paul's admonition and, if anything, is more committed because one is aligning one's testimony with one's public Christian faith.

[endlessQuestions]

See, this is why I am suspect of Fotheringham. Joseph Kingsbury didn't swear to anything. But he did affirm.
When I went to court I refused to swear on the Bible I was offered because that very same Bible instructs us not to swear on or by anything. Our yay should be yay, and our nay should be nay. So I was asked to affirm instead, which I did.
This is what Kingsbury did in the Temple Lot case.

I don't see it that way.

In your example, you wouldn't swear in on the Bible, which no one had an issue with back in his day. With Kingsbury, he was likely already sworn in, but his refusing to swear was related to Joseph and polygamy. He's opting for a less committed position because he feels guilty actually swearing to a known lie.

That was not the case. He refused to swear to anything, even his own ordination to the priesthood in the church. And people who read the Bible did have an issue swearing on it even in his day.
Affirming is not a less committed position. It is in accordance with Paul's admonition and, if anything, is more committed because one is aligning one's testimony with one's public Christian faith.

And this is why I like you, Robin Hood.

Ornery as can be, and quite often correct.

[Robin Hood]

I don't see it that way.

In your example, you wouldn't swear in on the Bible, which no one had an issue with back in his day. With Kingsbury, he was likely already sworn in, but his refusing to swear was related to Joseph and polygamy. He's opting for a less committed position because he feels guilty actually swearing to a known lie.

That was not the case. He refused to swear to anything, even his own ordination to the priesthood in the church. And people who read the Bible did have an issue swearing on it even in his day.
Affirming is not a less committed position. It is in accordance with Paul's admonition and, if anything, is more committed because one is aligning one's testimony with one's public Christian faith.

And this is why I like you, Robin Hood.

Ornery as can be, and quite often correct.

Ornery is not a word used on this side of the pond, so I had to look it up... "Bad tempered and difficult to deal with".
I'm not bad tempered, but I suppose I can be difficult to deal with... especially when I'm right and the other guy is wrong.

[endlessQuestions]

That was not the case. He refused to swear to anything, even his own ordination to the priesthood in the church. And people who read the Bible did have an issue swearing on it even in his day.
Affirming is not a less committed position. It is in accordance with Paul's admonition and, if anything, is more committed because one is aligning one's testimony with one's public Christian faith.

And this is why I like you, Robin Hood.

Ornery as can be, and quite often correct.

Ornery is not a word used on this side of the pond, so I had to look it up... "Bad tempered and difficult to deal with".
I'm not bad tempered, but I suppose I can be difficult to deal with... especially when I'm right and the other guy is wrong.

If I used the word incorrectly I sincerely apologize. Obviously, I don’t know if you’re bad tempered, as we’ve never met in real life.

[Cruiserdude]

That was not the case. He refused to swear to anything, even his own ordination to the priesthood in the church. And people who read the Bible did have an issue swearing on it even in his day.
Affirming is not a less committed position. It is in accordance with Paul's admonition and, if anything, is more committed because one is aligning one's testimony with one's public Christian faith.

And this is why I like you, Robin Hood.

Ornery as can be, and quite often correct.

Ornery is not a word used on this side of the pond, so I had to look it up... "Bad tempered and difficult to deal with".
I'm not bad tempered, but I suppose I can be difficult to deal with... especially when I'm right and the other guy is wrong.

[CuriousThinker]

See, this is why I am suspect of Fotheringham. Joseph Kingsbury didn't swear to anything. But he did affirm.
When I went to court I refused to swear on the Bible I was offered because that very same Bible instructs us not to swear on or by anything. Our yay should be yay, and our nay should be nay. So I was asked to affirm instead, which I did.
This is what Kingsbury did in the Temple Lot case.

I don't see it that way.

In your example, you wouldn't swear in on the Bible, which no one had an issue with back in his day. With Kingsbury, he was likely already sworn in, but his refusing to swear was related to Joseph and polygamy. He's opting for a less committed position because he feels guilty actually swearing to a known lie.

That was not the case. He refused to swear to anything, even his own ordination to the priesthood in the church. And people who read the Bible did have an issue swearing on it even in his day.
Affirming is not a less committed position. It is in accordance with Paul's admonition and, if anything, is more committed because one is aligning one's testimony with one's public Christian faith.

I watched the video and the testimony that he gives doesn't reflect that way of thinking.

[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.

[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.

You found a discrepancy, congratulations. I was beginning to wonder if Rob “could never lead me astray.”

Rob is a man w/ opinions. He’s evaluating historical data, which is challenging at best. But, what he has done is present far more accurate historical data than the LDS org does. Rob, IMO, is striving for truth, the church on the other had is “defending the good name of the church.” The distinction in motives is important.

[ransomme]

Joseph C. Kingsbury. The man who refused to swear that what he claimed was true.

Wow!!!

I've never heard before the Kingsbury wouldn't swear that what he said of 132 was true. Has anyone else heard this?

This is the complete opposite of the Law of Witnesses.

Joseph Smith never testifies and Joseph Kingsbury refuses to.

See, this is why I am suspect of Fotheringham. Joseph Kingsbury didn't swear to anything. But he did affirm.
When I went to court I refused to swear on the Bible I was offered because that very same Bible instructs us not to swear on or by anything. Our yay should be yay, and our nay should be nay. So I was asked to affirm instead, which I did.
This is what Kingsbury did in the Temple Lot case.

wow, you found the needle in the haystack. Pack it up boys, everything else can be dismissed!

Seriously the preponderance of evidence seems to clearly tip the balance toward the case that Fatheringham presents.

[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.

You found a discrepancy, congratulations. I was beginning to wonder if Rob “could never lead me astray.”

Rob is a man w/ opinions. He’s evaluating historical data, which is challenging at best. But, what he has done is present far more accurate historical data than the LDS org does. Rob, IMO, is striving for truth, the church on the other had is “defending the good name of the church.” The distinction in motives is important.

I disagree. I think he has an agenda and is trying to present it in such a way as to achieve his goal.
He'll often interject an assumption and present it as just that, but then say that if the assumption is correct then A+B+C=D. He builds a persuasive case which sounds very believable, and even obvious, until you realise the whole superstructure was based on an unsubstantiated assumption. He's very good at it, to the point that you don't realise what he's doing at first.
I don't trust the man.

[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...

[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.

You found a discrepancy, congratulations. I was beginning to wonder if Rob “could never lead me astray.”

Rob is a man w/ opinions. He’s evaluating historical data, which is challenging at best. But, what he has done is present far more accurate historical data than the LDS org does. Rob, IMO, is striving for truth, the church on the other had is “defending the good name of the church.” The distinction in motives is important.

I disagree. I think he has an agenda and is trying to present it in such a way as to achieve his goal.
He'll often interject an assumption and present it as just that, but then say that if the assumption is correct then A+B+C=D. He builds a persuasive case which sounds very believable, and even obvious, until you realise the whole superstructure was based on an unsubstantiated assumption. He's very good at it, to the point that you don't realise what he's doing at first.
I don't trust the man.

He’s an evil man, hellbent on satanic worship.

[oneClimbs]

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.