Where concubines occur (at least historically), they represent a second tier in the marriage system. Concubines were legal wives (which is to say they were married, usually with a marriage contract of some sort, and so on), however, being a concubine didn't extend all of the same kinds of benefits that a wife would get extending primarily to social status and inheritance rights for the children.
This is exactly why it's troublesome that a "God" would sanction this type of relationship. It smacks of a caste system.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
In ancient days, wives, concubines, and female slaves were all owned by their masters. They were given specific rights based on their status but they were all owned and used for their sexual purposes.
Marriage was NOT a contract between a man and a woman, it was a contract between men; girls and women bought and sold.
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~
by the way, hi Ben! Nice to see you!
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
Truth Dancer, I tend to disagree with you. I think that it varied widely from culture to culture and from time period to time period, but the notion that women were generally property and treated as such comes from much more recent periods of time, and has stayed with western culture in particular. This is not to say that all women were given great degrees of freedom and power, but, likewise, not all women were treated as property, and depending on how you define "ancient days", we do in fact have some quantity of marriage contracts and related information describing how they worked.
Benjamin McGuire wrote:Truth Dancer, I tend to disagree with you. I think that it varied widely from culture to culture and from time period to time period, but the notion that women were generally property and treated as such comes from much more recent periods of time, and has stayed with western culture in particular. This is not to say that all women were given great degrees of freedom and power, but, likewise, not all women were treated as property, and depending on how you define "ancient days", we do in fact have some quantity of marriage contracts and related information describing how they worked.
Ben,
Disabusing someone like TD of the cherished notions of feminist propaganda represents the acme of futility. The modern myth of linear human social evolution is impregnable to the inconvenient facts of history.
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...
DarkHelmet wrote:supposedly this is God's voice. It is interesting that God would use the word "concubine" to describe these women, and then say David, Solomon, and Moses did not commit a sin. A concubine is a sex toy. And then God says he gave these guys their concubines.
Try to remember that there is always a man between God and you. And them. And that man really really really doesn't like women.
According to Brigham Young, that man is Joseph Smith, and that man really, really, really did like women. He just didn't respect them.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Sethbag wrote: According to Brigham Young, that man is Joseph Smith, and that man really, really, really did like women. He just didn't respect them.
That was pretty much my point too, Seth. harmony seems to equate "liking" with "respecting." There are people I respect but don't necessarily like that much.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Trouble with concubines is that they are the ones who ask for palimony. This secret was known unto the ancients and flourished in Solomon's court. It was later passed down in this last dispensation and so has been avoided.
Benjamin McGuire wrote:Truth Dancer, I tend to disagree with you. I think that it varied widely from culture to culture and from time period to time period, but the notion that women were generally property and treated as such comes from much more recent periods of time, and has stayed with western culture in particular. This is not to say that all women were given great degrees of freedom and power, but, likewise, not all women were treated as property, and depending on how you define "ancient days", we do in fact have some quantity of marriage contracts and related information describing how they worked.
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.
Apostle Abraham H. Cannon noted in his 5 April 1894 diary that both George Q. Cannon and Wilford Woodruff approved of such arrangements. “I believe in concubinage,” George Q. is recorded as saying, “or some plan whereby men and women can live together under sacred ordinances and vows until they can be married.” Woodruff responded to Cannon’s suggestion, “If men enter into some practice of this character to raise a righteous posterity, they will be justified in it.”
If this were practiced it would make all a lot easier in justifying Fannie Alger and many others for a lot of early Church leadership. Would really be handy today... for the men. Sure looks like a bad deal for the women.
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
zzyzx wrote:Apostle Abraham H. Cannon noted in his 5 April 1894 diary that both George Q. Cannon and Wilford Woodruff approved of such arrangements. “I believe in concubinage,” George Q. is recorded as saying, “or some plan whereby men and women can live together under sacred ordinances and vows until they can be married.” Woodruff responded to Cannon’s suggestion, “If men enter into some practice of this character to raise a righteous posterity, they will be justified in it.”
If this were practiced it would make all a lot easier in justifying Fannie Alger and many others for a lot of early Church leadership. Would really be handy today... for the men. Sure looks like a bad deal for the women.
The whole kit and kaboodle was a bad deal for women. The worst thing about it is it's a bad deal that still exists today.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
