In Latter Times Some Shall Forbid Marriage

[ALarson]

23 minutes ago, JulieM said:

What the heck?  Not that I don't believe you, but do you have a reference for that?

William Clayton's legal wife was Ruth Moon.  His first polygamous wife was her sister Margaret Moon.  Their Mother (his Mother-in-law) lived with them too.  What I was referencing was this entry by William in his journal:

Quote

 

Aug 24, 1843 -

 "At night
I asked mother [his mother in law] if M[argaret Moon] might sleep with Ruth and me. She appeared very rebellious and would not
consent but said we might do as we had a mind."

 

William Clayton's Nauvoo diaries are fascinating to read through if you haven't done so.  You can order them online.  Another interesting part of his story is that he also attempted to marry a 3rd sister (Lydia Moon). 

https://www.amazon.com/Claytons-Secret-Writings-Uncovered-Secretary/dp/B000OWKXHO

Edited August 22, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, ALarson said:

William Clayton's legal wife was Ruth Moon.  His first polygamous wife was her sister Margaret Moon.  Their Mother (his Mother-in-law) lived with them too.  What I was referencing was this entry by William in his journal:

William Clayton's Nauvoo diaries are fascinating to read through if you haven't done so.  You can order them online.  Another interesting part of his story is that he also attempted to marry a 3rd sister (Lydia Moon). 

https://www.amazon.com/Claytons-Secret-Writings-Uncovered-Secretary/dp/B000OWKXHO

I think, with a presentist mindset, you are jumping to a conclusion, and a very salacious one at that.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think, with a presentist mindset, you are jumping to a conclusion, and a very salacious one at that.

I never stated a conclusion.  I stated "hinted at" and that's what I believe.  I have no idea what actually was taking place (and I honestly don't care).  William Clayton's story is interesting for many reasons and his Nauvoo journals are fascinating to read through if you haven't done so.  They contain a great deal regarding what was going on in Nauvoo at that time.   I highly recommend them.

Edited August 22, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

I never stated a conclusion.  I stated "hinted at" and that's what I believe.  I have no idea what actually was taking place (and I honestly don't care).  William Clayton's story is interesting for many reasons and his Nauvoo journals are fascinating to read through if you haven't done so.  They contain a great deal regarding what was going on in Nauvoo at that time.   I highly recommend them.

You must have arrived at a conclusion about what he meant for you to assert that he "hinted at" it.

And if you're not sure that's what he meant then you are engaging in gossip.

I agree about Clayton's journals being a rich and fascinating primary source. My favorite entry is the one about his writing the words to "Come, Come, Ye Saints" while the pioneers were encamped on the Iowa plains at Locust Creek en route to Winter Quarters with the valley of the Great Salt Lake being the ultimate destination. He was in a good mood, just having received word that his wife, Diantha, had given birth back in Nauvoo to "a fine, fat baby boy."

Edited August 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You must have arrived at a conclusion about what he meant for you to assert that he "hinted at" it.

Nope.  Once again, I have no idea what took place and I honestly do not care.  They were married and all living together and could do as they pleased.  Clayton obviously felt it was ok (to all sleep together) enough to have at least asked the question of his Mother-in-law (and then record the conversation).  That's about the only conclusion one can make here, IMO.

Edited August 22, 2017 by ALarson

[JAHS]

On 8/17/2017 at 0:04 AM, california boy said:

Why is the Spirit whispering to so many members that something is wrong.

They are listening to the wrong spirit. The church leaders are not perfect but they are united in this doctrine. I trust the spirit they are listening to, more than the spirit a few other church members are listening to. 

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

William Clayton's legal wife was Ruth Moon.  His first polygamous wife was her sister Margaret Moon.  Their Mother (his Mother-in-law) lived with them too.  What I was referencing was this entry by William in his journal:

William Clayton's Nauvoo diaries are fascinating to read through if you haven't done so.  You can order them online.  Another interesting part of his story is that he also attempted to marry a 3rd sister (Lydia Moon). 

https://www.amazon.com/Claytons-Secret-Writings-Uncovered-Secretary/dp/B000OWKXHO

Thanks, Alarson!  All very interesting to read.  I think I'll order me a copy of the journal (it's only $6.00 ).

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Nope.  Once again, I have no idea what took place and I honestly do not care.  They were married and all living together and could do as they pleased.  Clayton obviously felt it was ok (to all sleep together) enough to have at least asked the question of his Mother-in-law (and then record the conversation).  That's about the only conclusion one can make here, IMO.

If you have no idea and don't care about what took place, I don't understand the need to even bring it up. At minimum it is an insinuation. Somebody here used the term "threesome" with a sexual connotation. That strikes me as gossip.

But I don't desire to argue with you about it.

Edited August 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

If you have no idea and don't care about what took place, I don't understand the need to even bring it up. At minimum it is an insinuation.

But I don't desire to argue with you about it.

Me either.  I was simply responding to someone else's post (and wasn't the first to mention "threesome").  I honestly thought this was being referenced possibly.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Me either.  I was simply responding to someone else's post (and wasn't the first to mention "threesome").  I honestly thought this was being referenced possibly.

You may not have brought it up, but you contributed to it and enlarged upon it.

 

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Thanks, Alarson!  All very interesting to read.  I think I'll order me a copy of the journal (it's only $6.00 ).

You're welcome.  It's fascinating to read through (much that we now know regarding how polygamy was lived during that era was written about by Clayton in his diaries along with other information about that time period).   

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You may not have brought it up, but you contributed to it and enlarged upon it.

 

Well, this is a discussion board and that happens on most threads. 

Moving on now....

Edited August 22, 2017 by ALarson

[CV75]

47 minutes ago, JAHS said:

They are listening to the wrong spirit. The church leaders are not perfect but they are united in this doctrine. I trust the spirit they are listening to, more than the spirit a few other church members are listening to. 

And I believe this is a bonafide manifestation of common consent.

[JulieM]

38 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You're welcome.  It's fascinating to read through (much that we now know regarding how polygamy was lived during that era was written about by Clayton in his diaries along with other information about that time period).   

I have been reading more about these diaries.  Are they what was accidentally exposed by Andrew Ehat when he was writing his thesis at BYU?  Or were those something else?

Edited August 22, 2017 by JulieM

[ALarson]

41 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I have been reading more about these diaries.  Are they what was accidentally exposed by Andrew Ehat when he was writing his thesis at BYU? 

Yes.  And, that's an interesting story in and of itself!  

I'm just glad we now have them to read.

Edited August 22, 2017 by ALarson

[Bernard Gui]

21 hours ago, ALarson said:

I'm not the one who introduced the word "threesome" to the discussion.  I actually did think it was possible that Jeanne was referring to what William Clayton wrote in his journal (regarding the two sisters he was married to and the invitation for them to all sleep together....).   Notice I used the word "hinted at" too.

There are plenty of sexual references in the records regarding polygamy.  And,  "pottymouth"???   Are you in 3rd grade?  That made me laugh 

Context matters. A "threesome" is just one of many deviations trying to pose as marriage. Multi-partner marriages are popping up more frequently. There will be concerted attempts to legalize them.  If marriage is "a contract between two consenting adults," as some here have proposed, then one must ask why "2" is part of the equation. 

We Mormons base our definition of marriage on Jacob 2; therefore, we must oppose this, too. But using CB's argument, doing so would be further evidence that the Church is oppressive, denies the Plan of Happiness to those who want multi-partner relationships, and fulfilling Paul's prophecy. The former LDS practice of plural marriage will be used to silence the Church's opposition.

Edited August 22, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

I never stated a conclusion.  I stated "hinted at" and that's what I believe.  I have no idea what actually was taking place (and I honestly don't care).  William Clayton's story is interesting for many reasons and his Nauvoo journals are fascinating to read through if you haven't done so.  They contain a great deal regarding what was going on in Nauvoo at that time.   I highly recommend them.

Of course. It's called innuendo, you know, wink, wink, wink. You know, insinuation.

Edited August 22, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

A "threesome" is just one of many deviations trying to pose as marriage. 

Ok.  I really have no opinion of it one way or the other.  I tend to believe what happens between consenting adults is up to them and have no issue with it.  I only object when someone is harming another or forcing someone to participate in something objectionable to them.  

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Of course. It's called innuendo, you know, wink, wink, wink.

Well, it certainly was hinted at (which is what I stated).  But we can't know what Clayton was thinking, can we?  He may have just had sleeping in mind.  The conclusion I posted above is the only one I can make with what was written by him in his diary.

 

[Bernard Gui]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, it certainly was hinted at (which is what I stated).  But we can't know what Clayton was thinking, can we?  He may have just had sleeping in mind.  The conclusion I posted above is the only one I can make with what was written by him in his diary.

 

That's the beauty of innuendo. We don't have to know in order to know.

Edited August 22, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

That's the beauty of innuendo. We don't have to know in order to know.

Well, his mother-in-law's reaction gives us a clue of what she might have thought about his request ("She appeared very rebellious and would not
consent but said we might do as we had a mind.") and she was there.  But maybe she just didn't like William?  I'm going to read more about it when I get my own copy of his journal, but just an observation here on this point.

[JulieM]

26 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes.  And, that's an interesting story in and of itself!  

I'm just glad we now have them to read.

Well, I'm looking forward to getting my copy.  Thanks again.

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, it certainly was hinted at (which is what I stated).  But we can't know what Clayton was thinking, can we?  He may have just had sleeping in mind.  The conclusion I posted above is the only one I can make with what was written by him in his diary.

 

How do you know it was "hinted at" if you can't know what he was thinking? What was there to be "hinted at"? To ask it another way, who is doing the hinting and what is it that he's hinting at?

You're not making sense.

Innuendo, just as Bernard said. And denying it when it's obvious what you're doing makes your action all the more sleazy.

Edited August 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Well, his mother-in-law's reaction gives us a clue of what she might have thought about his request ("She appeared very rebellious and would not
consent but said we might do as we had a mind.") and she was there.  But maybe she just didn't like William?  I'm going to read more about it when I get my own copy of his journal, but just an observation here on this point.

As you read more about his relationship with his Mother-in-law, it becomes evident that it was complicated.  At least in his eyes (since he was the one recording the events), she really struggled with polygamy and seems to almost have a complete break down over it.  He also wanted to marry her third daughter (Lydia) and she was very much against that happening.  

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Well, his mother-in-law's reaction gives us a clue of what she might have thought about his request ("She appeared very rebellious and would not
consent but said we might do as we had a mind.") and she was there.  But maybe she just didn't like William?  I'm going to read more about it when I get my own copy of his journal, but just an observation here on this point.

With polygamy, his mother-in-law had plenty to feel rebellious about without there being a question of the three-way sexual trist that ALarson is "hinting at."