Why no concubines today?

[Guest]

Who cares Joey. It isn't relevant to this issue. If I ever decide to write about the temple marriage ceremonies in this forum, you are welcome to chirp in. On this subject though, its a rather pointless aside.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

By the way, as an aside dealing with the original thought, there was a specific need for concubinage in ancient Israel - which had some rather rigid caste systems. One particular example was for kings. The kings (whether good or bad) made dynastic and political marraiges with other nations. However, as non-Israelites, these wives couldn't attain the same kind of social status in Israelite society, nor could the children of such a union become king - or have certain inheritance benefits. So, we have concubines - a legal marriage which otherwise did not convey all the benefits of social status and inheritance that a more traditional wife might. When we get the narrative in Judges of the Levite with his concubine that much to do is made over, the Levite could only take a wife who was from the priestly families, and the children from his union with the woman described as his concubine wouldn't become priests or levites. The marriage was still a marriage, but it didn't make the woman a member of a levitical family. And so we can have marriages that don't impede the caste system that had developed. Now this isn't to say that such a system wasn't abused or had its own issues, however, it isn't the same as having a mistress - it was a legal marriage.

[_truth dancer]

Hey Ben,

TD,

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

My personal opinion is that Babatha's situation was rather unusual, being wealthy and probably the only child of a wealthy, deceased land owner and no mention of any blood relatives other than her son.

But, rather than my opinion here is a quote from an expert specifically addressing your question.

From this article.

In conclusion, I do not argue that the marriages documented in P.Yadin were in fact
monogamous. Rather I make the much more limited assertion, that the documents cannot be used
to argue for polygamous marriages because they can bear a plausible alternative interpretation of
serial monogamy. Furthermore, even if the marriages in this group of documents were
polygamous, we do not know enough about the attendant circumstances to judge if these were
typical or exceptional.

But Ben, Babatha lived in the second century CE. Patriarchy and marriage/concubinage/slavery originated a few millennia earlier.

I think we can agree that most likely we would see changes in the laws from the nomadic Semites who (among others) instigated Patriarchy to the Romans two thousand years later.

Also, when Joseph Smith supposedly got his revelation commanding him to "marry" girls and women he was reading from the Old Testament... he quotes OLD testament prophets; he claimed to be restoring the practice of David and Solomon.

And, absolutely there were legal and binding contracts between the male owners of women, again whether they were wives, concubines or slaves, men owned them.

~td~

[_Joey]

Who cares Joey. It isn't relevant to this issue. If I ever decide to write about the temple marriage ceremonies in this forum, you are welcome to chirp in. On this subject though, its a rather pointless aside.

This thread is about contents of DC 132. The same place the LDS claim for eternal/temple marriage originates. You require others to look at historical events when it suits your needs but are very eager to run from such standards when it goes against you Benji.

The fact that Provo pundits don't like to be held to the same standards they require of others is quite relevant (and telling). Running from notice that you are selective in your standards is, well, consistent
I guess.

Provo culture at work!

[by the way, just making the turn at Park Meadows here in Park City today if I can by any pundits a beer afterword! Gorgeous day.]

[_Benjamin McGuire]

First, for Joey:

The OP asked about concubines. Mormonism has never recognized a separate class of marriage which has been called concubinage - hence the question in the Subject.

Section 132 has a lot of stuff in it. Most of it is entirely unrelated to this question. You are simply using this as an excuse to try and get in your juvenile kicks. Actually, you will find that I do not turn away and run as you suggest. I think, if you ask TD and some of the other posters here, I tend to be as straight forward as I can with all of the issues I address. I have a long posting history with many of the posters here.

I don't live in Provo (I did actually for a short time), rather on the other side of the country. I don't come from the Mormon cultural environment. There is no history of polygamy in my family (well my Dad has been married three times, but consecutively, and only one of them after he converted to Mormonism some years ago).

The bigger issue is that I don't think there is any relevance to your comments. Maybe if they had something to say about the topic of concubines, I might engage them. But they don't.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Now, for TD -

I think I have a few points.

1) Babatha is interesting for a couple of reasons. She doesn't seem to have been a particularly special or important person. She was married more than once, held her own property (even while married), certainly wasn't "owned", and in many other ways seems to have a number of priviledges that run counter to your claims. That and the fact that her lawyer seems to have been a woman ... and although concubinage probably didn't specifically exist outside of polygamous environments, the quote you provided only attempts to address the question of polygamy - it didn't deal much with the other socio-economic evidences.

2) The patriarchy occurs long before the accounts which describe it. There is certainly in my mind a case to be made that using the Old Testament to describe marriage practices in the patriarchal period is problematic.

3) Men were also slaves. This is to say that slavery was an accepted thing, and that it fit into the system of social tiers that the notion of concubinage was probably developed to address (can't have those social climbers can we).

4) Whether or not J.S. used the Old Testament, the O.T. system of concubinage clearly has limited (if any at all) applicability in western society.

I tell you what - since you note this:

And, absolutely there were legal and binding contracts between the male owners of women, again whether they were wives, concubines or slaves, men owned them.

Why don't you provide some of these contracts (at least an example or two) between a man and his wife, or a man and his concubine that indicates this ownership. This ought to at least give us an idea of specifically what milieu you are refering to.

Finally, don't take this as a claim that I think that men and women had equal standing, were treated equally, or anything of the sort. I don't believe this is true. I simply think that your statements go far beyond historical accuracy and instead reflect some of the more truely attrocious periods in the history of western civilization than they do some of our ancient cultures.

[_Joey]

First, for Joey:

The OP asked about concubines. Mormonism has never recognized a separate class of marriage which has been called concubinage - hence the question in the Subject.

Section 132 has a lot of stuff in it. Most of it is entirely unrelated to this question. You are simply using this as an excuse to try and get in your juvenile kicks. Actually, you will find that I do not turn away and run as you suggest. I think, if you ask TD and some of the other posters here, I tend to be as straight forward as I can with all of the issues I address. I have a long posting history with many of the posters here.

I don't live in Provo (I did actually for a short time), rather on the other side of the country. I don't come from the Mormon cultural environment. There is no history of polygamy in my family (well my Dad has been married three times, but consecutively, and only one of them after he converted to Mormonism some years ago).

The bigger issue is that I don't think there is any relevance to your comments. Maybe if they had something to say about the topic of concubines, I might engage them. But they don't.

SSHHHHH. People putting. Get back later

[_Joey]

First, for Joey:

The OP asked about concubines. Mormonism has never recognized a separate class of marriage which has been called concubinage - hence the question in the Subject.

Section 132 has a lot of stuff in it. Most of it is entirely unrelated to this question. You are simply using this as an excuse to try and get in your juvenile kicks. Actually, you will find that I do not turn away and run as you suggest. I think, if you ask TD and some of the other posters here, I tend to be as straight forward as I can with all of the issues I address. I have a long posting history with many of the posters here.

I don't live in Provo (I did actually for a short time), rather on the other side of the country. I don't come from the Mormon cultural environment. There is no history of polygamy in my family (well my Dad has been married three times, but consecutively, and only one of them after he converted to Mormonism some years ago).

The bigger issue is that I don't think there is any relevance to your comments. Maybe if they had something to say about the topic of concubines, I might engage them. But they don't.

SSHHHHH. People putting. Get back later

Benji,

My comment goes to facts and standards. You obviously don't want to be evaluated by the standard you request of others! Similarities to Peterson and Provo. Now, I had a good round w a 75, so if you want present a good case I am flexible. But just don't do the Peterson/Provo thing with me, I much prefer facts opposed to emotion.

What say the boys???

[_Benjamin McGuire]

I think Joey, after reading through some of you other posts, that this is my last comment sent in your direction.

[_Joey]

I think Joey, after reading through some of you other posts, that this is my last comment sent in your direction.

Surprise, surprise!!! This is classic Provo/Peterson culture. Why deal with the relevant issue when adopting the Robert Millet response is much more convemient. Probably why my wife's bishop (whoever the current one is) has never responded to my written requests either. The fear of a fact based conversation in Mormonism is reason for abaondonment by most Mormons and all apologists. Benji, you're just doing your job and getting the approval of Provo Peterson! Kudos!