Why no concubines today?

[_ktallamigo]

This is a really good point.

What about concubines?

Someone ought to ask that question at MAD, with the George Q. Cannon/Wilford Woodruff endorsement.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

JohnStuartMill writes:

I doubt that, by "property", truth dancer had anything in mind other than the lack of "great degrees of freedom and power" given to women. She'd be right on that score.

I will bite John, which of the women pharoahs in ancient Egypt didn't have great degrees of freedom and power?

[_JohnStuartMill]

JohnStuartMill writes:

I doubt that, by "property", truth dancer had anything in mind other than the lack of "great degrees of freedom and power" given to women. She'd be right on that score.

I will bite John, which of the women pharoahs in ancient Egypt didn't have great degrees of freedom and power?

I thought we were talking specifically about the religious culture that Mormonism points to as its ancestor.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

JohnStuartMill writes:

I thought we were talking specifically about the religious culture that Mormonism points to as its ancestor.

I wasn't, no.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Then I think you're wresting truth dancer's statement from its context in this thread.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

No, I don't think so. But you ought to be aware that TD and I have had this discussion probably a good half dozen times over the last 10 years ....

How would you define "ancient days"?

[_JohnStuartMill]

Outside of any further context, I'd define it as any culture that existed before CE 500 or so. In the context of the discussions that have taken place here recently about polygyny, concubinage, and how modern Mormons justify their peculiar beliefs regarding sexuality and family structure, I'd define it more specifically as the people who lived under the "laws of God" during that era.

Of course, if you and truth dancer have a history of discussing this issue, I'll defer to that.

[_moksha]

Fathers basically sold/traded their daughters to a man, who became their owners. Again, depending on their status they became either a wife, concubine, or slave.

~td~

Sounds rather FLDS.

[_Paracelsus]

Fathers basically sold/traded their daughters to a man, who became their owners. Again, depending on their status they became either a wife, concubine, or slave.
~td~

Sounds rather FLDS.

It never entered my head that there was
- a certain Helen Mar Kimball.
(You know the story)

It never entered my head that there was
- a certain Vilate Kimball
(Joseph Smith had requested Heber give him Vilate as a plural wife. After three agonizing day of prayer and fasting Heber took Vilate to Joseph. The prophet wept at this demonstration of obedience and faith then sealed Heber and Vilate for time and eternity.)
(by the way I would have said no in one second.)

It never entered my head that there was
- a certain Heber C. Kimball
(Kimball received private instruction from Joseph Smith on the new LDS commandment of plural marriage. Initially reluctant, Kimball accepted the responsibility and married a second wife, Sarah Noon. His first wife, Vilate Murray Kimball, accepted plural marriage and welcomed the additional wives as sisters. Kimball eventually married a total of forty-three women)
(Always that reluctance ... Joseph Smith was reluctant - 27 to 40 wives, BY was reluctant - 20 wives, Kimball was reluctant - 43, where were this church without that many initial reluctance?)

[_truth dancer]

Just to clarify, I am specifically referring to ancient Hebrews.

And, I hold to my view that in early patriarchal cultures, women were property, owned by either their fathers (or oldest male relative), or master/husbands.

Again, marriage was not a contract between a man and a woman but between two men exchanging property.

I don't really think there is a question about this.

~td~