The artificial intelligence MEGATHREAD

[MG 2.0]

Secret ceremony performed by Levi Hancock. No marriage certificate.

Regards,
MG

Did that secret ceremony make the "marriage" legal? Would Hancock legitimately have been able to issue a legal marriage certificate for a second "marriage"?? If not, my point stands: affair, adultery - take your choice.

A few years ago I met a man in Ohio who believed that god wanted him to take a second wife. His first wife apparently was OK with that. If I had held a "secret ceremony" for him and his new bride, would that have made his second marriage legal, whether I made a certificate or not?

There are various sources that talk about Fanny being something more than an affair. It's interesting that Ann Eliza Webb Young (you know her history) saw the relationship as being a sealing:

The Alger family "considered it the highest honor to have their daughter adopted into the prophet's family, and her mother has always claimed that she [Fanny] was sealed to Joseph at that time." [7] This would be a strange attitude to take if their relationship was a mere affair. And, the hostile Webbs had no reason to invent a "sealing" idea if they could have made Fanny into a mere case of adultery.
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/ans ... perplexity

The following information may also be helpful as it presents a timeline for Joseph and Fanny's relationship.

https://mormonr.org/qnas/qp3yc/joseph_s ... perplexity

The following may also be of interest where we learn:

In addition, important new evidence also supports that Fanny was a plural wife of Joseph Smith. In 2009, Don Bradley discovered a folder at the Church History Library containing Andrew Jenson’s research notes, a folder that no previous polygamy investigator had viewed.
7
Jenson used those notes to write his 1887 article published in the Historical Record entitled: “Plural Marriage.”
8

In preparation for that article, Jenson interviewed several Nauvoo polygamists still living, including Joseph’s plural wives Malissa Lott and Eliza R. Snow. He recorded that Eliza was “well acquainted with her [Fanny Alger] as she/ and lived with the Prophet at the time.”
9
Eliza’s proximity to the events is important because, in 1886, she personally wrote Fanny’s name on a list of Joseph Smith’s wives affirming the relationship was a marriage.
https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/plural ... perplexity

If these sources demonstrate Joseph was sealed/married to Fanny, then my earlier posts present a different view that may hold possibility rather than looking at this issue with the jaundiced eyes that critics seem to view it.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

<AI-generated material snipped>

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/ans ... perplexity

https://mormonr.org/qnas/qp3yc/joseph_s ... perplexity

https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/plural ... perplexity

If these sources...

MG knows that "source=perplexity" means AI-generated, which means nothing more than that he's found a new way to cheat the rule. How many chances does MG get in breaking the rule about not posting AI generated material? in my opinion, he won't stop unless the rule is enforced with consequences.

[I Have Questions]

<AI-generated material snipped>

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/ans ... perplexity

https://mormonr.org/qnas/qp3yc/joseph_s ... perplexity

https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/plural ... perplexity

If these sources...

MG knows that "source=perplexity" means AI-generated, which means nothing more than that he's found a new way to cheat the rule. How many chances does MG get in breaking the rule about not posting A.I. generated material? in my opinion, he won't stop unless the rule is enforced with consequences.

He’s pathological. He’s had a short ban. That didn’t have the desired effect. He’s still breaking the AI rule. Now what Shades?

[Chap]

MG knows that "source=perplexity" means A.I.-generated, which means nothing more than that he's found a new way to cheat the rule. How many chances does MG get in breaking the rule about not posting A.I. generated material? in my opinion, he won't stop unless the rule is enforced with consequences.

MG is incorrigible - meaning, literally, that it is not possible to make his behaviour conform to the correct behaviour of a poster on this board. Much of the stuff he posts is of little value, given the way it is generated.

May I suggest he should either get a ban for a week or so, or be subjected to a queuing regime? Either way, he needs to be taught that although there are few rules on this board, those rules that there are must be obeyed if you want to go on posting here.

[malkie]

Did that secret ceremony make the "marriage" legal? Would Hancock legitimately have been able to issue a legal marriage certificate for a second "marriage"?? If not, my point stands: affair, adultery - take your choice.

A few years ago I met a man in Ohio who believed that god wanted him to take a second wife. His first wife apparently was OK with that. If I had held a "secret ceremony" for him and his new bride, would that have made his second marriage legal, whether I made a certificate or not?

There are various sources that talk about Fanny being something more than an affair. It's interesting that Ann Eliza Webb Young (you know her history) saw the relationship as being a sealing:

The Alger family "considered it the highest honor to have their daughter adopted into the prophet's family, and her mother has always claimed that she [Fanny] was sealed to Joseph at that time." [7] This would be a strange attitude to take if their relationship was a mere affair. And, the hostile Webbs had no reason to invent a "sealing" idea if they could have made Fanny into a mere case of adultery.
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/ans ... perplexity

The following information may also be helpful as it presents a timeline for Joseph and Fanny's relationship.

https://mormonr.org/qnas/qp3yc/joseph_s ... perplexity

The following may also be of interest where we learn:

In addition, important new evidence also supports that Fanny was a plural wife of Joseph Smith. In 2009, Don Bradley discovered a folder at the Church History Library containing Andrew Jenson’s research notes, a folder that no previous polygamy investigator had viewed.
7
Jenson used those notes to write his 1887 article published in the Historical Record entitled: “Plural Marriage.”
8

In preparation for that article, Jenson interviewed several Nauvoo polygamists still living, including Joseph’s plural wives Malissa Lott and Eliza R. Snow. He recorded that Eliza was “well acquainted with her [Fanny Alger] as she/ and lived with the Prophet at the time.”
9
Eliza’s proximity to the events is important because, in 1886, she personally wrote Fanny’s name on a list of Joseph Smith’s wives affirming the relationship was a marriage.
https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/plural ... perplexity

If these sources demonstrate Joseph was sealed/married to Fanny, then my earlier posts present a different view that may hold possibility rather than looking at this issue with the jaundiced eyes that critics seem to view it.

Regards,
MG

C'mon, MG, you know what I'm asking, and you seem to be determined not to answer my question directly. Let's talk about facts rather than "a different view that may hold possibility". Whether critics eyes are "jaundiced" has no bearing on the facts - that statement is merely a thinly-disguised ad hominem that does not affect the quality of the argument or the legality of the relationship.

Using your words:

• "The Alger family "considered it the highest honor to have their daughter adopted into the prophet's family, and her mother has always claimed that she [Fanny] was sealed to Joseph at that time." You know that all sorts of people have all sorts of "strange" ideas. Does the possible "strange attitude" make this a legal relationship?
• does the fact "that Eliza was “well acquainted with her [Fanny Alger] as she/ and [sic] lived with the Prophet at the time.” make this a legal relationship?
• does "various sources that talk about Fanny being something more than an affair." make this a legal relationship?
• does it being "interesting that Ann Eliza Webb Young ... saw the relationship as being a sealing" make this a legal relationship?
• does being "sealed/married to Fanny" constitute a legal relationship?
• do these "sources" demonstrate that "Joseph was sealed/married to Fanny" legally?
• does "Eliza’s proximity to the events " and that "she personally wrote Fanny’s name on a list of Joseph Smith’s wives affirming the relationship was a marriage." make this a legal relationship?

If this were anything other than an affair/adultery, what would all of these people's opinions matter. Where is the legal paperwork that attests to the legitimacy of the "marriage".

Suppose I had married that gentleman in Ohio, and, as a High Priest, sealed them together:
Firstly, nobody, including my current stake president, has ever told me that my use of my status in the LDS priesthood is subject to any restrictions.
Secondly, I hold a Priest of Dudism certificate which I believe is recognised as legal for performing marriages is most US states.

• if the woman's family considered it the highest honor to have their daughter adopted into his family, and her mother always claimed that she was sealed to him at that time, would that make this a legal relationship?
• if a later plural "wife" who was well acquainted with her knew that she lived with him at the time, would that make this a legal relationship?
• if various sources talk about this being something more than an affair, does that make this a legal relationship?
• if a later plural "wife" saw the relationship as being a sealing, would that make this a legal relationship?
• does their being "sealed/married" together by me make this a legal relationship?
• if someone personally wrote her name on a list of his wives affirming the relationship was a marriage, would that make this a legal relationship?

[MG 2.0]

<AI-generated material snipped>

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/ans ... perplexity

https://mormonr.org/qnas/qp3yc/joseph_s ... perplexity

https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/plural ... perplexity

If these sources...

MG knows that "source=perplexity" means AI-generated, which means nothing more than that he's found a new way to cheat the rule. How many chances does MG get in breaking the rule about not posting A.I. generated material? in my opinion, he won't stop unless the rule is enforced with consequences.

I read the links provided through search (A.I.). As I read the information I then introduced the links by showing/stating what might be interesting or of use in the link that would in turn help answer some of the concerns that folks seem to have about Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

There are various sources that talk about Fanny being something more than an affair. It's interesting that Ann Eliza Webb Young (you know her history) saw the relationship as being a sealing:



The following information may also be helpful as it presents a timeline for Joseph and Fanny's relationship.

https://mormonr.org/qnas/qp3yc/joseph_s ... perplexity

The following may also be of interest where we learn:



If these sources demonstrate Joseph was sealed/married to Fanny, then my earlier posts present a different view that may hold possibility rather than looking at this issue with the jaundiced eyes that critics seem to view it.

Regards,
MG

C'mon, MG, you know what I'm asking, and you seem to be determined not to answer my question directly. Let's talk about facts rather than "a different view that may hold possibility". Whether critics eyes are "jaundiced" has no bearing on the facts - that statement is merely a thinly-disguised ad hominem that does not affect the quality of the argument or the legality of the relationship.

Using your words:

• "The Alger family "considered it the highest honor to have their daughter adopted into the prophet's family, and her mother has always claimed that she [Fanny] was sealed to Joseph at that time." You know that all sorts of people have all sorts of "strange" ideas. Does the possible "strange attitude" make this a legal relationship?
• does the fact "that Eliza was “well acquainted with her [Fanny Alger] as she/ and [sic] lived with the Prophet at the time.” make this a legal relationship?
• does "various sources that talk about Fanny being something more than an affair." make this a legal relationship?
• does it being "interesting that Ann Eliza Webb Young ... saw the relationship as being a sealing" make this a legal relationship?
• does being "sealed/married to Fanny" constitute a legal relationship?
• do these "sources" demonstrate that "Joseph was sealed/married to Fanny" legally?
• does "Eliza’s proximity to the events " and that "she personally wrote Fanny’s name on a list of Joseph Smith’s wives affirming the relationship was a marriage." make this a legal relationship?

If this were anything other than an affair/adultery, what would all of these people's opinions matter. Where is the legal paperwork that attests to the legitimacy of the "marriage".

Suppose I had married that gentleman in Ohio, and, as a High Priest, sealed them together:
Firstly, nobody, including my current stake president, has ever told me that my use of my status in the LDS priesthood is subject to any restrictions.
Secondly, I hold a Priest of Dudism certificate which I believe is recognised as legal for performing marriages is most US states.

• if the woman's family considered it the highest honor to have their daughter adopted into his family, and her mother always claimed that she was sealed to him at that time, would that make this a legal relationship?
• if a later plural "wife" who was well acquainted with her knew that she lived with him at the time, would that make this a legal relationship?
• if various sources talk about this being something more than an affair, does that make this a legal relationship?
• if a later plural "wife" saw the relationship as being a sealing, would that make this a legal relationship?
• does their being "sealed/married" together by me make this a legal relationship?
• if someone personally wrote her name on a list of his wives affirming the relationship was a marriage, would that make this a legal relationship?

Prosecution and Defense are going to look at the same evidence from different perspectives and come to difference conclusions.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Another non-answer. Not one single one of my several questions is answered. Just a vague handwaving.

But, anyway, let's see actual evidence for prosecution and defence to examine that you think supports your contention that this was anything other than adultery. Unless the only "evidence" you have is hearsay and opinion.

by the way, what do you think are the chances that the guy I met in Ohio could establish that the "marriage" I performed was legit?

[Marcus]

He’s pathological. He’s had a short ban. That didn’t have the desired effect. He’s still breaking the AI rule. Now what Shades?

MG is incorrigible - meaning, literally, that it is not possible to make his behaviour conform to the correct behaviour of a poster on this board. Much of the stuff he posts is of little value, given the way it is generated.

May I suggest he should either get a ban for a week or so, or be subjected to a queuing regime? Either way, he needs to be taught that although there are few rules on this board, those rules that there are must be obeyed if you want to go on posting here.

In response to both, note that MG has now written another excuse for why he thinks he should be allowed to break the rule re posting AI-generated content:

...I read the links provided through search (A.I.). As I read the information I then introduced the links ...

Links to AI-generated content, and then he posted AI-generated content. Given that it's AI generated, as multiple people have noted there is no guarantee that any of it is true.

Shades has covered this, and has repeatedly told MG specifically and even in all caps several times, but MG seems to think he shouldn't have to follow the rule.

[MG 2.0]

This thread is going in a direction that has little or no interest for me in respect to where Marcus is going. I will bow out and let things take their course.