Why no concubines today?

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Again, it depends on the time and the place. Even in Hebrew culture.

[_truth dancer]

Just a couple of quotes that may be pertinent...

From the Creation of Patriarchy, by Gerda Lerner.

"In the earliest period the patriarch had undisputed authority over the members of his family. The wife called her husband "ba'al" or "master"; he was similarly referred to as the "ba'al" of his house or field. In the Decalogue the wife is listed among a man's possessions, along with his servants, his ox, and his ass (Ex. 20:17) In this period the father also could sell his daughter into slavery or prostitution, which was later forbidden him." P. 168.

"... Hebrew men enjoyed complete sexual freedom within and outside of marriage. The biblical scholar Louis M. Epstein states that during the early periods the husband had free sexual use of his concubines and slave women."

"It may also be taken for granted that the honor, even the lives, of women was at the disposal of the men of their families, who regarded women as interchangeable instruments to be used for their procreative services."

"In regard to legal rights in their persons or their bodies, there is no difference between free or slave women nor between married women or virgins. The virgin daughters are as disposable as the concubine or the enslaved woman captured in warfare."

Women themselves became a resource, acquired by men much as the land was acquired by men. Women were exchanged or bought in marriage for the benefit of their families; later they were conquered or bought in slavery, where their sexual services were part of their labor and where their children were the property of their masters.

"In every known society it was women of conquered tribes who were first enslaved, whereas men were killed."

"The product of this commodification of women - bride price, sale price, and children - was appropriated by men. It may very well represent the first accumulation of private property. The enslavement of women of conquered tribes became not only a status symbol for nobles and warriors, but it actually enabled the conquerors to acquire tangible wealth through selling or trading the product of the slaves' labor and their reproductive product, slave children." P 213

"For women, class is mediated through their sexual ties to a man. It is through the man that women have access to or are denied access to the means of production and to resources. It is through their sexual behavior that they gain access to class."

"The class position of women became consolidated and actualized through their sexual relationships. It always was expressed within degrees of unfreedom on a spectrum ranging from the slave woman, whose sexual and reproductive capacity was commodified as she herself was; to the slave-concubine, whose sexual performance might elevate her own status or that of her children; then to the "free" wife, whose sexual and reproductive services to one man of the upper classes entitled her to property and legal rights. While each of these groups had vastly different obligations and privileges in regard to property, law, and economic resources, they shared the unfreedom of being sexually and reproductively controlled by men." P. 215.

[_truth dancer]

Again, it depends on the time and the place. Even in Hebrew culture.

Hi Ben,

Yes, of course. We are talking about a few millennia however even as rights and laws may have changed, women were considered property and were bought and sold and traded by men.

~td~

[_ktallamigo]

Regarding what TD just posted about the status of women in ancient Hebrew society:

It speaks volumes about the mindset and character of Joseph Smith that he would love the old testament so much and want to restores the "ancient order of things."

And, if the Book of Mormon was the restored book that came from the Lord, why did he focus so much on the old testament? I mean, what really did the Book of Mormon add to his new religion? Most of it comes from the D&C or Bible.

[_Brackite]

Here is the definition of Concubine, From one of the Bible-Gateway Dictionaries:

Concubine

in the Bible denotes a female conjugally united to a man, but in a relation inferior to that of a wife. Among the early Jews, from various causes, the difference between a wife and a concubine was less marked than it would be amongst us. The concubine was a wife of secondary rank. There are various laws recorded providing for their protection (Ex. 21:7; Deut. 21:10-14), and setting limits to the relation they sustained to the household to which they belonged (Gen. 21:14; 25:6). They had no authority in the family, nor could they share in the household government.

The immediate cause of concubinage might be gathered from the conjugal histories of Abraham and Jacob (Gen. 16;30). But in process of time the custom of concubinage degenerated, and laws were made to restrain and regulate it (Ex. 21:7-9).

Christianity has restored the sacred institution of marriage to its original character, and concubinage is ranked with the sins of fornication and adultery (Matt. 19:5-9; 1 Cor. 7:2).

( Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary: )



Here is again Jacob Chapter Two, Verses 23 and 24:

Jacob 2:23 & 24:

[23] But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

[24] Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

[_JohnStuartMill]

I will bite John

Please don't. Only one person has permission to do that, and last time I checked, you weren't my girlfriend.

[_Brackite]

(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?)

A minor correction here: Brigham Young had at least 26 wives.

Please Check Out and See:

Brigham Young and Mormon Polygamy:

[_Benjamin McGuire]

TD,

Would you say the Babbatha was typical or atypical (lived about the time of the Bar Kokhba revolution under Roman occupation)?

[_Benjamin McGuire]

By the way, TD, I am going to tell you right up, that I don't have much use for the Old Testament on this issue. There are going to always be questions of date of authorship, and more importantly, there are almost always sharp differences between what the Old Testament says, and what was actually happening. After all, the Old Testament forbids a lot of things that we know were quite common in Hebrew culture. It is quite a different picture once we stop looking at the laws in the Old Testament and start looking at marriage documents (like marriage contracts) and other legal issues surrounding marriage during the period. In other words, you need to provide evidence of what actually happened not just evidence based on much later texts of what might have been ....

[_Joey]

In other words, you need to provide evidence of what actually happened not just evidence based on much later texts of what might have been ....

But only "if and when" it suits an LDS apologist in a selective argument!!!

Just think if their temple marriage/endowments requirement was held to the same standard!!!

Restored? Not hardly Benji.